The GDS does not show a better criterion validity than the CES-D, but methodological limitations of primary studies hamper the generalizability of pooled analyses.

The prevalence of individual EURO-D symptoms and of probable depression (cut-off score > or =4) varied consistently between countries. Standardising for effects of age, gender, education and cognitive function suggested that these compositional factors did not account for the observed variation.

AimsIn the past few years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of forcibly displaced migrants worldwide, of which a substantial proportion is refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers may experience high levels of psychological distress, and show high rates of mental health conditions. It is therefore timely and particularly relevant to assess whether current evidence supports the provision of psychosocial interventions for this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions compared with control conditions (treatment as usual/no treatment, waiting list, psychological placebo) aimed at reducing mental health problems in distressed refugees and asylum seekers.MethodsWe used Cochrane procedures for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. We searched for published and unpublished RCTs assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in adults and children asylum seekers and refugees with psychological distress. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive and anxiety symptoms at post-intervention were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include: PTSD, depressive and anxiety symptoms at follow-up, functioning, quality of life and dropouts due to any reason.ResultsWe included 26 studies with 1959 participants. Meta-analysis of RCTs revealed that psychosocial interventions have a clinically significant beneficial effect on PTSD (standardised mean difference [SMD] = −0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.01 to −0.41; I2 = 83%; 95% CI 78–88; 20 studies, 1370 participants; moderate quality evidence), depression (SMD = −1.02; 95% CI −1.52 to −0.51; I2 = 89%; 95% CI 82–93; 12 studies, 844 participants; moderate quality evidence) and anxiety outcomes (SMD = −1.05; 95% CI −1.55 to −0.56; I2 = 87%; 95% CI 79–92; 11 studies, 815 participants; moderate quality evidence). This beneficial effect was maintained at 1 month or longer follow-up, which is extremely important for populations exposed to ongoing post-migration stressors. For the other secondary outcomes, we identified a non-significant trend in favour of psychosocial interventions. Most evidence supported interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma-focused component. Limitations of this review include the limited number of studies collected, with a relatively low total number of participants, and the limited available data for positive outcomes like functioning and quality of life.ConclusionsConsidering the epidemiological relevance of psychological distress and mental health conditions in refugees and asylum seekers, and in view of the existing data on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, these interventions should be routinely made available as part of the health care of distressed refugees and asylum seekers. Evidence-based guidelines and implementation packages should be developed accordingly.

No abstract

The reported prevalence of late-life depressive symptoms varies widely between studies, a finding that might be attributed to cultural as well as methodological factors. The EURO-D scale was developed to allow valid comparison of prevalence and risk associations between European countries. This study used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Rasch models to assess whether the goal of measurement invariance had been achieved; using EURO-D scale data collected in 10 European countries as part of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) (n = 22,777). The results suggested a two-factor solution (Affective Suffering and Motivation) after Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in 9 of the 10 countries. With CFA, in all countries, the two-factor solution had better overall goodness-of-fit than the one-factor solution. However, only the Affective Suffering subscale was equivalent across countries, while the Motivation subscale was not. The Rasch model indicated that the EURO-D was a hierarchical scale. While the calibration pattern was similar across countries, between countries agreement in item calibrations was stronger for the items loading on the affective suffering than the motivation factor. In conclusion, there is evidence to support the EURO-D as either a uni-dimensional or bi-dimensional scale measure of depressive symptoms in late-life across European countries. The Affective Suffering sub-component had more robust cross-cultural validity than the Motivation sub-component.