The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mental disorders in Bangladesh: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Mental disorders constitute a major public health problem globally with higher burden in low and middle-income countries. In Bangladesh, systematically-collected data on mental disorders are scarce and this leaves the extent of the problem not so well defined. We reviewed the literature on mental health disorders in Bangladesh to summarize the available data and identify evidence gaps. METHODS: We identified relevant literature on mental disorders within Bangladesh published between 1975 and October, 2013 through a systematic and comprehensive search. Relevant information from the selected articles was extracted and presented in tables. RESULTS: We identified 32 articles which met our pre-defined eligibility criteria. The reported prevalence of mental disorders varied from 6.5 to 31.0% among adults and from 13.4 to 22.9% among children. Some awareness regarding mental health disorders exists at community level. There is a negative attitude towards treatment of those affected and treatment is not a priority in health care delivery. Mental health services are concentrated around tertiary care hospitals in big cities and absent in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of mental disorders is high in Bangladesh, yet a largely unrecognized and under-researched area. To improve the mental health services in Bangladesh, further well-designed epidemiological and clinical research are needed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Depression, chronic diseases, and decrements in health: results from the World Health Surveys
Moussavi, S., Chatterji, S., Verdes, E., Tandon, A., Patel, V., & Ustun, B. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61415-9 · Cited by 4,070
The Prevalence of Comorbid Depression in Adults With Diabetes
Anderson, R. J., Freedland, K. E., Clouse, R. E., & Lustman, P. J. (2001) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.24.6.1069 · Cited by 3,926
Questionnaire screening for mental health problems in Bangladeshi children: a preliminary study
Mullick, M. S. I., & Goodman, R. (2001) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s001270050295 · Cited by 189
Cited by
Ogbo, F. A., Mathsyaraja, S., Koti, R. K., Perz, J., & Page, A. (2018) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1918-1 · Cited by 84
Rabby, M. R.-A., Islam, M. S., Orthy, M. T., Jami, A. T., & Hasan, M. T. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1136557 · Cited by 30
Ma, J., Mahat, P., Brøndbo, P. H., Handegård, B. H., Kvernmo, S., & Javo, A. C. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255596 · Cited by 25
Khan, A., Uddin, R., & Burton, N. W. (2018) · International Health · doi:10.1093/inthealth/ihy019 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Hossain, M. D., Ahmed, H. U., Chowdhury, W. A., Niessen, L. W., & Alam, D. S.
- Venue
- BMC Psychiatry
- Published
- 2014-07-30
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 216-216
- ISSN
- 1471-244X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2033329364
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.