MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004448407 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30548-0

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group support psychotherapy delivered by trained lay health workers for depression treatment among people with HIV in Uganda: a cluster-randomised trial

2020· article· en· W3004448407 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Etheldreda Nakimuli‐Mpungu, Seggane Musisi, Kizito Wamala, James Okello, Sheila Ndyanabangi, Josephine Birungi, Mastula Nanfuka, Micheal Etukoit, Chrispus Mayora, Freddie Ssengooba, Ramin Mojtabai, Jean B. Nachega, Ofir Harari, Edward J. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaMQ: Transforming Mental Health
KeywordsDepression (economics)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Cluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Randomized controlled trialMedicinePsychiatryGroup psychotherapyAlternative medicinePsychologyPhysical therapyFamily medicinePsychological interventionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends the use of psychological interventions as first-line treatment for depression in low-income and middle-income countries. However, evaluations of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such interventions among people with HIV are scarce. Our aim was to establish the effectiveness of group support psychotherapy (GSP) delivered by lay health workers for depression treatment among people living with HIV in a rural area of Uganda on a large scale. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, we included 30 health centres offering HIV care. These were randomly assigned to deliver either GSP or group HIV education (GHE). Randomisation, in a ratio of 1:1, was achieved by health centre managers separately picking a paper containing the intervention allocation from a basket. Participants were people living with HIV, aged 19 years and older, with mild to moderate major depression assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview depression module, taking antiretroviral therapy, and antidepressant-naive. Group sessions were led by trained lay health workers once a week for 8 weeks. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with major depression and function scores at 6 months post-treatment, analysed by intention to treat by means of multilevel random effect regression analyses adjusting for clustering in health centres. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR201608001738234. FINDINGS: Between Sept 13 and Dec 15, 2016, we assessed 1473 individuals, of whom 1140 were recruited from health centres offering GSP (n=578 [51%]) or GHE (n=562 [49%]). Two (<1%) participants in the GSP group were diagnosed with major depression 6 months post-treatment compared with 160 (28%) in the GHE group (adjusted odds ratio=0·01, 95% CI 0·003-0·012, p<0·0001). The mean function scores 6 months post-treatment were 9·85 (SD 0·76) in the GSP group and 6·83 (2·85) in the GHE group (β=4·12; 95% CI 3·75-4·49, p<0·0001). 36 individuals had 63 serious adverse events, which included 25 suicide attempts and 22 hospital admissions for medical complications. The outcomes of these serious adverse events included 16 deaths, 4 of which were completed suicides (GSP=2; GHE=2), and 12 of which were HIV-related medical complications (GSP=8; GHE=4). Cost-effectiveness estimates showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$13·0 per disability-adjusted life-year averted, which can be considered very cost-effective in Uganda. INTERPRETATION: Integration of cost-effective psychological treatments such as group support psychotherapy into existing HIV interventions might improve the mental health of people living with HIV. FUNDING: MQ Transforming Mental Health and Grand Challenges Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207