Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 50%Low 2 · 50%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Lay health worker‐led psychosocial interventions vs usual care or no treatment

Adverse events (during intervention) · children/adolescents with post‐traumatic stress and related depressive/anxiety symptoms

1 finding from 1 review

Primary‐level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low‐ and… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 809 participants
Low

Community professional‐led interventions vs no care

Adverse events (during intervention)Â · children/adolescents with post‐traumatic stress and related depressive/anxiety symptoms

1 finding from 1 review

Primary‐level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low‐ and… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 180 participants
Low

Primary health professionals and lay health workers vs usual care

Adverse events ‐ number of deaths (during intervention) Â · people with dementia and their carers

1 finding from 1 review

Primary‐level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low‐ and… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 141 participants
Very low

Lay health worker‐ vs specialist‐led care

Adverse events ‐ death from suicide during intervention (RR > 1 denotes greater risk)Â · people with severe mental disorders

It is very uncertain whether lay health worker‐ changes adverse events ‐ death from suicide during intervention (RR > 1… compared with specialist‐led care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary‐level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low‐ and… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.51 [0.03, 8.03]
1 study · 282 participants
Very low