Prevalence and diagnostic tools predictability of common mental disorders among Indian children and adolescent population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Main Authors: G Radhika, R Sankar, R Rajendran
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2021-01-01
• Series: Journal of Mental Health and Human Behaviour
• Subjects: adolescents; children; common mental disorders; india; meta-analysis; screening tools; systematic review
• Online Access: http://www.jmhhb.org/article.asp?issn=0971-8990;year=2021;volume=26;issue=1;spage=5;epage=16;aulast=Radhika

The objective of this systematic review was to examine the pooled prevalence of common mental disorder (CMD) and to evaluate the predictability of screening instruments to detect CMD in the children and adolescent population in India. Data sources included the MEDLINE, PubMed, PyschEXTRA, and PyschINFO up to 2020, with additional studies identified from a search of reference lists to examine the diagnostic utility of tools carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines, PRISMA within parentheses after the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). Only studies involving children and adolescents with an independent measure of depression and anxiety in India were included. Random effects meta-analyses were employed to calculate a pooled estimate of depression prevalence. Twenty studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic review. The analysis showed that several tools were used in different regions of the nation to measure CMD such as the beck depression inventory (BDI), Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale. The pooled prevalence of depression was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 12.57–27.12), 15% (95% CI = 4.67–30.90) for anxiety, and 11% (95% CI = 4.37–19.77) for any depressive disorder. In terms of BDI had the highest sensitivity (61%) while CDRS-R had the highest specificity (75%). Given the high heterogeneity of the studies, there is insufficient evidence that any tool accurately screens for CMD and likely to underestimate the true prevalence.