https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1797952/1-s2.0-S0140673618322797-main.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/164632/2/01_Bin%2bSayeed_Global%252C_regional%252C_and_national_2018.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, andyears lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematicanalysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/259213304/PIIS0140673620309259.pdf

Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/122776/1/gbd2016riskfactorscollaborators2017_3028.pdf

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Despite high burden of dementia in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), only a small number of clinical trials of psychosocial interventions for persons with dementia (PwD) have been conducted in these settings. It is essential that such trials use appropriate outcome measures that are methodologically robust and culturally appropriate to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. We carried out a systematic review to examine the evidence base and psychometric properties of measures employed in these studies in LMICs. A systematic search of published literature on randomised controlled trials (RCT) of psychosocial interventions for PwD in LMICs between 2008 and April 2020 was carried out. Measures employed in each of the eligible studies were identified and through a focused search, we further explored the evidence base and psychometric properties employing Terwee criteria. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. The review identified 41 measures from 17 RCTS which fulfilled eligibility criteria and they examined effectiveness across the domains of cognition (n = 16), behaviour and psychological symptoms (n = 11) and quality of life (n = 8). Of these 41, we were able to access relevant literature only for 18 and they were subject to psychometric analysis. Psychometric properties of these 18 instruments were at best modest, with Terwee scores ranging from 3 (low) to 15 (moderate). A majority of the studies were from China (n = 5) and Brazil (n = 6). The evidence base for the routinely employed measures in RCTs of non-pharmacological interventions for PwD in LMICs is limited. The quality of adaptation and validation of these instruments is variable and studies are largely uninformative about their psychometric properties and cultural appropriateness to the study setting. There is an urgent need to develop scientifically robust instruments in LMIC settings that can be confidently employed to measure outcomes in trials of psychosocial interventions for PwD.

Psychometric properties of outcome measures in non‐pharmacological interventions of persons with dementia in low‐and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

Abstract India with a population of 1.3 billion has a unique health care system in its different states. Mental health care varies widely across the country and this became even more apparent after the COVID-19 pandemic set in. This paper examines the various strategies in response to COVID-19 adopted by the Government of India, the health departments of the individual states, and other private players such as on-government organizations and the civil society. The cessation of many services including outpatient and inpatient care and the scarcity of medicines were serious impacts of COVID-19. The prolonged lockdown in many parts of the country impeded access to mental health care services since public transport was unavailable. This led to many relapses in persons with serious mental disorders. The emergence of new cases of psychosis and an increase in suicides were also seen. Tele consultations came to the fore and many helplines were started offering counseling and guidance regarding the availability of mental health care facilities. While these helped the urban dwellers, those in remote and rural areas were unable to use these services effectively. Many mental health wards were used for COVID-19 patients and mental health professionals were deployed for COVID-19 related duty. The severely mentally ill, the homeless mentally ill, and the elderly were especially vulnerable. Based on our experience with COVID-19, we urge a strong call for action, in terms of strengthening the primary care facilities and increasing the manpower resources to deliver mental health care.

https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgac043

How Did the Mental Health Care System in India Respond to COVID 19 Pandemic?

A caregiver support group was initiated at the Schizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India. The study aimed to evaluate this service for 100 caregivers of persons with dementia, identify the needs met and explore the facilitating factors and barriers for participation. The support group met the information, emotional and counselling needs of caregivers. Trust between members was a key facilitating factor. Lack of help at home to support the person with dementia, distance from the venue and work commitments were barriers to caregiver participation. The study found that support groups fulfil an important need for caregivers by providing information and peer support.

Support groups for family caregivers of persons with dementia in India.

Despite their emphasis on engagement, there has been little research on patients' and families' experiences of care in early intervention services for psychosis. We sought to compare patients' and families' experiences of care in two similar early psychosis services in Montreal, Canada and Chennai, India. Because no patient‐ or family‐reported experience measures had been used in a low‐ and middle‐income context, we created a new measure, Show me you care. Here we present its development and psychometric properties.

Show me you care: A patient‐ and family‐reported measure of care experiences in early psychosis services

The study of course and outcome of schizophrenia continues to remain one of the most fascinating aspects of schizophrenia research. This starts with the very issue of the definition of outcome. Outcome being a multidimensional construct consisting of several independent domains, the assessment of different variables is a daunting task. Moreover, as with any population-based longitudinal study, long-term outcome research is marred by attrition and cost. Traditionally, clinical symptoms and functioning have been the principal outcome indicators. Disability, family burden, and quality of life are other outcome measures considered important in recent times. The results of earlier multicountry studies of unequivocal better outcome in developing studies have been scrutinized now and questioned. With changing demographics and sociocultural milieu in these countries, reevaluation is needed, keeping in mind some issues like human rights violation, mortality, and comorbidity.

Thara Rangaswamy

Papers

Psychometric properties of outcome measures in non‐pharmacological interventions of persons with dementia in low‐and middle‐income countries: A systematic review

How Did the Mental Health Care System in India Respond to COVID 19 Pandemic?

Support groups for family caregivers of persons with dementia in India.

Show me you care: A patient‐ and family‐reported measure of care experiences in early psychosis services

Outcome of Schizophrenia in Low- and Middle-Income Countries