CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 356Mental Health Treatment and AccessTreatment of Major DepressionPsychological Treatments and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The global gap in treatment coverage for major depressive disorder in 84 countries from 2000–2019: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-regression analysis

Open access
Moitra, Modhurima, Santomauro, Damian, Collins, Pamela Y., Vos, Theo, Whiteford, Harvey, Saxena, Shekhar, Ferrari, Alize J.·2022·PLOS Medicine
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003901PMC PMC8846511
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: The treatment coverage for major depressive disorder (MDD) is low in many parts of the world despite MDD being a major contributor to disability globally. Most existing reviews of MDD treatment coverage do not account for potential sources of study-level heterogeneity that contribute to variation in reported treatment rates. This study aims to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence and analytically quantify sources of heterogeneity to report updated estimates of MDD treatment coverage and gaps by location and treatment type between 2000 and 2019. Methods and findings: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify relevant studies that provided data on treatment rates for MDD between January 1, 2000, and November 26, 2021, from 2 online scholarly databases PubMed and Embase. Cohort and cross-sectional studies were included if treatment rates pertaining to the last 12 months or less were reported directly or if sufficient information was available to calculate this along with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Studies were included if they made use of population-based surveys that were representative of communities, countries, or regions under study. Studies were included if they used established diagnostic criteria to diagnose cases of MDD. Sample and methodological characteristics were extracted from selected studies. Treatment rates were modeled using a Bayesian meta-regression approach and adjusted for select covariates that quantified heterogeneity in the data. These covariates included age, sex, treatment type, location, and choice of MDD assessment tool. A total of 149 studies were included for quantitative analysis. Treatment coverage for health service use ranged from 51% [95% UI 20%, 82%] in high-income locations to 20% [95% UI 1%, 53%] in low- and lower middle-income locations. Treatment coverage for mental health service use ranged from 33% [95% UI 8%, 66%] in high-income locations to 8% [95% UI <1%, 36%] in low- and lower middle-income countries. Minimally adequate treatment (MAT) rates ranged from 23% [95% UI 2%, 55%] in high-income countries to 3% [95% UI <1%, 25%]) in low- and lower middle-income countries. A primary methodological limitation was the lack of sufficient data from low- and lower middle-income countries, which precluded our ability to provide more detailed treatment rate estimates. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that the treatment coverage for MDD continues to be low in many parts of the world and in particular in low- and lower middle-income countries. There is a continued need for routine data collection that will help obtain more accurate estimates of treatment coverage globally.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003901

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Number of studies on MDD treatment coverage by country. Note: created using open-source software R version 4.1, using the rworldmap package. MDD, major depressive disorder.
Fig 1 Number of studies on MDD treatment coverage by country. Note: created using open-source software R version 4.1, using the rworldmap package. MDD, major depressive disorder.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Predicted treatment gap (lines) and 95% UIs (shaded region) for any health service use by age, sex, and GBD superregion. Note: 95% UIs incorporate between-study heterogeneity. GBD, Global Burden of Disease; UI, uncertainty interval.
Fig 2 Predicted treatment gap (lines) and 95% UIs (shaded region) for any health service use by age, sex, and GBD superregion. Note: 95% UIs incorporate between-study heterogeneity. GBD, Global Burden of Disease; UI, uncertainty interval.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Predicted treatment gap (lines) and 95% UIs (shaded) for any mental health service use by age, sex, and GBD superregion. Note: 95% UIs incorporate between-study heterogeneity. GBD, Global Burden of Disease; UI, uncertainty interval.
Fig 3 Predicted treatment gap (lines) and 95% UIs (shaded) for any mental health service use by age, sex, and GBD superregion. Note: 95% UIs incorporate between-study heterogeneity. GBD, Global Burden of Disease; UI, uncertainty interval.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–356 of 356

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Moitra, M., Santomauro, D., Collins, P. Y., Vos, T., Whiteford, H., Saxena, S., & Ferrari, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Ferrari, Alize J.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS Medicine
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2022-02-15
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
e1003901
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
DOI
10.1371/journal.pmed.1003901
PMC
PMC8846511
OpenAlex
W4212909683
Cited by
355
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 98 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 27
FWCI
9.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Department of Health, Queensland
  • National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship Grant (APP1121516)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Disorders
Keywords
major depressive disorder, treatment coverage, mental health service utilization, health care utilization, global health disparities, low- and middle-income countries, Bayesian meta-regression, study heterogeneity, antidepressant treatment, antidepressant side effects, antidepressant discontinuation
MeSH terms
Global Burden of Disease, Bayes Theorem, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Regression Analysis, Global Health, Treatment Outcome, Insurance Coverage

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