Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38650067›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2024

A scoping review of the literature on the application and usefulness of the Problem Management Plus (PM+) intervention around the world.

Patrick N Mwangala, Millicent Makandi, Anita Kerubo, Moses K Nyongesa, Amina Abubakar

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Patrick N MwangalaInstitute for Human Development, Aga Khan University, Kenya; Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kilifi, Kenya; and School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9046-1465
Millicent MakandiInstitute for Human Development, Aga Khan University, Kenya.
Anita KeruboInstitute for Human Development, Aga Khan University, Kenya.
Moses K NyongesaInstitute for Human Development, Aga Khan University, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7761-0718
Amina AbubakarInstitute for Human Development, Aga Khan University, Kenya; Centre for Geographic Medicine Research Coast, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Kilifi, Kenya; and Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK.

Funding

Global Affairs Canada P_007597
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the high rates of common mental disorders and limited resources, task-shifting psychosocial interventions are needed to provide adequate care. One such intervention developed by the World Health Organization is Problem Management Plus (PM+).

aimsThis review maps the evidence regarding the extent of application and usefulness of the PM+ intervention, i.e. adaptability, feasibility, effectiveness and scalability, since it was introduced in 2016.

methodWe conducted a scoping review of seven literature databases and grey literature from January 2015 to February 2024, to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature on PM+ around the world.

resultsOut of 6739 potential records, 42 met the inclusion criteria. About 60% of the included studies were from low- and middle-income countries. Findings from pilot/feasibility trials demonstrated that PM+ is feasible, acceptable and safe. Results from definitive randomised controlled trials at short-term follow-up also suggested that PM+ is effective, with overall moderate-to-large effect sizes, in improving symptoms of common mental health problems. Although PM+ was more effective in reducing symptoms of common mental disorders, it was found to be costlier compared to usual care in the only study that evaluated its cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsOur findings indicate that PM+, in its individual and group formats, can be adapted and effectively delivered by trained helpers to target a wide range of common mental health concerns. More effectiveness and implementation evidence is required to understand the long-term impact of PM+, its cost-effectiveness and scalability, and moderators of treatment outcomes such as gender and delivery formats.

Indexed as

common mental disordersmental health servicesProblem Management Plus (PM+)psychosocial interventionsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID38650067
PMCPMC11060090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.