WHO mhGAP Guideline

Update
Update of the Mental Health Gap Action Programme
(mhGAP) Guideline for Mental, Neurological and
Substance use Disorders
May 2015
WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Update of the Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) guidelines for mental, neurological
and substance use disorders, 2015.

I.World Health Organization.

ISBN 978 92 4 154941 7

Subject headings are available from WHO institutional repository

© World Health Organization 2015

All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization are available on the WHO web site
(www.who.int) or can be purchased from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211
Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail: [email protected]).

Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for
non-commercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press through the WHO website
(www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html).

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers
or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be
full agreement.

The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are
endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature
that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are
distinguished by initial capital letters.

All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information
contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with
the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.
Table of contents

Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................1
Guideline Development Group........................................................................................................................ 1
External Peer Reviewers .................................................................................................................................. 1
Evidence Review and Synthesis Team Members ............................................................................................ 2
WHO Guideline Secretariat (staff and consultants) ........................................................................................ 2
Executive summary .....................................................................................................................................3
Background and objectives ............................................................................................................................. 3
Target audience ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Guideline update methodology....................................................................................................................... 3
Summary of recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Background and context ................................................................................................................................ 13
Objectives of the Guideline update ............................................................................................................... 14
Target audience ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Scope of guideline: What is included in this update? ................................................................................... 15
Guideline update methodology ................................................................................................................. 17
Group process................................................................................................................................................ 17
Declaration of Interest................................................................................................................................... 17
Evidence synthesis ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Translating evidence into recommendations ................................................................................................ 20
GDG meeting ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Decision-making process ............................................................................................................................... 22
External peer review...................................................................................................................................... 22
Publication, dissemination and evaluation of the guideline ....................................................................... 22
Presentation of the updated mhGAP guideline ............................................................................................ 22
Subsidiary products ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Dissemination plans....................................................................................................................................... 23
Monitoring and evaluating quality of the guideline ...................................................................................... 24
Future review and update ............................................................................................................................. 24
List of Recommendations and Remarks ..................................................................................................... 25
mhGAP Priority Condition: Depression ......................................................................................................... 26
mhGAP Priority Condition: Psychosis (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) ................................. 28
mhGAP Priority Condition: Epilepsy .............................................................................................................. 33
 mhGAP Priority Condition: Mental disorders with childhood onset ............................................................. 38
mhGAP Priority Condition: Dementia............................................................................................................ 43
mhGAP Priority Condition: Alcohol use disorders ......................................................................................... 47
mhGAP Priority Condition: Drug use disorders ............................................................................................. 49
mhGAP Priority Condition: Self-harm and suicide......................................................................................... 51
Appendix 1: List of GDG members .............................................................................................................. 52
Appendix 2: Note for the Record ................................................................................................................ 55
Appendix 3: Overview of declarations of interest from GDG members ........................................................ 56
Appendix 4: Details related to the search strategy and summation of evidence and electronic databases
routinely searched for each key question ................................................................................................... 59
Appendix 5: Guiding principles for technical experts to assess the quality of evidence included in evidence
profiles ...................................................................................................................................................... 61
Acknowledgements
Guideline Development Group
Graham Thornicroft (Co-chair), Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom). Corrado Barbui (Methodologist),
WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of
Verona, Italy.
Sophia Achab, WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Geneva/Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève (HUG),
Geneva, Switzerland. Emiliano Albanese, WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Geneva/HUG, Geneva,
Switzerland. Robert Ali, Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (DASSA), WHO Collaborating Centre for the
Treatment of Drug and Alcohol Problems, University of Adelaide, Australia. Vladimir Carli, National Centre for
Suicide Research and Prevention of Mental lll-Health (NASP), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Sudipto
Chatterjee, Parivartan Trust and Sangath, India. Wihelmus (Pim) Cuijpers, Vrije University, Amsterdam,
Netherlands. Kolou Simliwa Dassa, Ministry of Health, Lome, Togo. Christopher Dowrick, Institute of Psychology,
Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Julian Eaton, CBM International, Togo and
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom. Asma Humayun, Meditrina Health Care,
Islamabad, Pakistan. Gabriel Ivbijaro, Wood Street Medical Centre, London, United Kingdom. Nathalie Jette,
Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Canada. Charles Newton,
Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kilifi, Kenya. Olayinka Omigbodun, Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental
Health (CCAMH), University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. Akwasi Osei, Ministry of Health Ghana, Accra,
Ghana. Alfredo Pemjean, Departamento de Salud Mental, Ministerio de Salud, Santiago, Chile. Martin Prince,
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College, London, United Kingdom. Atif Rahman,
Institute of Psychology, Health & Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Richard Rawson,
University of California at Los Angeles Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, California, USA. Pratap Sharan, All
India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Vandad Sharifi Senejani, Tehran University of Medical
Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. Lakshmi Vijayakumar, SNEHA, Suicide Prevention Centre, Chennai,
India. Inka Weissbecker, International Medical Corps, Washington, United States of America. Zhao Min, Shanghai
Drug Abuse Treatment Centre, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

External Peer Reviewers

Atalay Alem, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ella Arensman, National Suicide Research
Foundation, Ireland. José Ayuso-Mateos, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain. Pierre Bastin, Clinique
Beaulieu, Geneva, Switzerland. Donna Bergen, Rush University Medical Centre, Illinois, United States of
America. José Bertolote, Botucatu Medical School, Brazil. Stephanie Burrows, Centre hospitalier de
l'université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada. Rabih El Chammay, St. Joseph University Beirut, Lebanon. Tony
Charman, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience King's College, London, United Kingdom.
Marek Chawarski, Yale School of Medicine, Connecticut, United States of America. Eric Emerson, Centre for
Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney, Australia. Saeed Farooq, Department of Psychiatry, Lady
Reading Hospital, Pakistan. Carlos Felipe D´Oliveira, National Association for Suicide Prevention, Brazil.
Melissa Gladstone, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom. Charlotte Hanlon, Addis Ababa University,
Ethiopia. Peter Hughes, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience King's College, London, United
Kingdom. Mark Jordans, Research for HealthNet TPO, Netherlands. Lynne Jones, National Health Service,
United Kingdom. Angelina Kakooza, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Rajesh Kalaria, University of
Newcastle, United Kingdom. Nicole Lee, Turning Point, Melborne, Australia. Valentina Lemmi, London
School of Economics, United Kingdom. Carlos Martinez, Ministry of Health, Argentina. James Mugisha,
National Association for Suicide Prevention, Uganda. Denis Padruchny, Information and Training Centre of
Psychiatry and Narcology, Minsk, Belarus. Adesola Ogunniy, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 1

Shoba Raja, Basic Needs, Bangalore, India. Vera da Ros, Rede Brasileira de Redução de Danos e Direitos
Humanos, Brazil. Sarah Skeen, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Maria Luisa Scattoni, Istituto Superiore
di Sanità, Rome, Italy. Emmanuel Streel, Public mental health and substance use consultant, Belgium.
Wietse Tol, Peter Alderman Foundation, Uganda. Mark Tomlinson, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Manjari Tripathi, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India. Nyan Tun, Yangon General Hospital,
Myanmar. Ambros Uchtenhagen, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Chris Underhill, Basic Needs, United
Kingdom. Pieter Ventevogel, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Switzerland.

Evidence Review and Synthesis Team Members

Laura Amato, Cochrane Collaborative Drugs and Alcohol Review Group, Rome, Italy. Satinder Aneja, Lady
Hardinge Medical College, India. Gayle Bell, Institute of Neurology, University College London, United
Kingdom. Irene Bighelli, Verona University, Italy. Erico Castro-Costa, FIOCRUZ (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation),
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Kieren Egan, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, HUG, Geneva, Switzerland.
Eirini Karyotaki, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Mark Keezer, University College London, United
Kingdom. Harriet MacMillan, McMaster University, Canada. Daniel Maggin, University of Illinois, United
States of America. Silvia Minozzi, Cochrane Collaborative Drugs and Alcohol Review Group, Rome, Italy.
Zuzana Mitrova, Cochrane Collaborative Drugs and Alcohol Review Group, Rome, Italy. Laura Pacione,
McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Amrita Parekh, Public Health Foundation of India. Tahilia Rebello,
Columbia University, United States of America. Brian Reichow, Child Study Centre, Yale School of Medicine,
Connecticut, United States of America. Khara Sauro, University of Calgary, Canada. Suvasini Sharma, Lady
Hardinge Medical College and associated Kalawati Saran Children's Hospital, India. Pratibha Singhi, Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, India. Lorenzo Tarsitani, Policlinico Umberto
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. Kiran Thakur, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, United States of
America. Mark Tomlinson, Cape Town University, South Africa. Anna Williams, Institute of Psychiatry,
Psychology and Neuroscience King's College, London, United Kingdom.

WHO Guideline Secretariat (staff and consultants)

Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Nicolas Clark, Tarun Dua, Alexandra Fleischmann, Melissa Harper, Shekhar Saxena, Chiara Servili, Mark van
Ommeren, Lindsey America-Simms, Elizabeth Centeno-Tablante, Archana A. Patel, Mohammad Taghi
Yasamy.

Regional and Country colleagues

Sebastiana Da Gama Nkomo, Regional Office for Africa. Devora Kestel, Regional Office for Americas. Jorge
Jacinto Rodriguez, Regional Office for Americas. Maristela G. Monteiro, Regional Office for Americas.
Matthijs Muijen, Regional Office for Europe. Khalid Saeed, Regional Office for Eastern Mediterranean.
Yutaro Setoya, Pacific Island Countries. Xiangdong Wang, Regional Office for Western Pacific.

Other Departments
John Beard, Department of Aging and Life Course. Alexander Butchart, Department of Management of
Noncommunicable diseases, Disability, Violence and Injury Prevention. Jane Ferguson, Department of
Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health. Berit Kieselbach, Department of Management of
Noncommunicable diseases, Disability, Violence and Injury Prevention. Nicola Magrini, Department of
Essential Medicines & Health Products. Chris Mikton, Department of Management of Noncommunicable
diseases, Disability, Violence and Injury Prevention. Eyerusalem Kebede Negussie, Department of HIV/AIDS.
Alana Officer, Department of Ageing and Life Course. Wilson Were, Department of Maternal, Newborn,
Child and Adolescent Health.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 2

Funds received from Core Voluntary Contributions and Assessed Contributions for 2014-2015 covered the
costs associated with this guideline update.

Executive summary

Background and objectives

Mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders are prevalent in all regions of the world and are
major contributors to morbidity and premature mortality. In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO)
developed the Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP), to facilitate scaling up of care for MNS
disorders. A key part of mhGAP is the evidence-based guideline, published in 2010 and available through the
mhGAP Evidence Resource Centre (http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/en/). The
objectives of the guideline are:
 To provide up-to-date WHO guidance to facilitate delivery of interventions by non-specialist health care
providers in low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs);
 To assist with the scale up of care for MNS disorders identified as conditions of high priority in LAMICs,
specifically: depression, psychosis (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorders), epilepsy, child mental
disorders, dementia, alcohol use disorders, drug use disorders and self-harm/suicide;
 To provide up-to-date WHO guidance that will facilitate the implementation of the WHO Comprehensive
Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020 by health care planners and programme managers in LAMICs.

As evidence-based guidelines are designed to reflect current research, regular update is of paramount
relevance.1 Out-of-date recommendations could be one determinant of inadequate patient care: therefore,
conducting regular evaluations and performing updates when appropriate should ensure the validity of
recommendations. More than four years have passed since the mhGAP recommendations have been issued.
Since then, regular monitoring of the background evidence has been performed by the WHO Collaborating
Centre assisting with the mhGAP guideline process in order to highlight areas where update is appropriate.
Furthermore, feedback from technical experts and health care providers has been collected, together with
feedback from several implementation activities. All of these activities prompted WHO to consider that, in
order to maintain the validity of the mhGAP guideline, an update is warranted.

Target audience
The primary audience for the mhGAP guideline are non-specialized health-care providers working at first-
and second-level health-care facilities. These include physicians who are not mental health specialists, family
physicians, nurses and clinical officers or other cadres of health workers. The secondary audience includes
health care managers including national, regional and district level programme managers responsible for
primary or non-mental health secondary health care services and specialists (in mental health, neurology
and substance use) involved in training of trainers and supervision.

Guideline update methodology

The Guideline Development Group (GDG) members, the technical experts (to assist with evidence review
and synthesis), and the peer reviewers were selected from an international panel of experts with
1
Lyratzopoulos G, Barnes S, Stegenga H, Peden S, Campbell B., International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2012;28(1): 29–35.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000675.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 3

multidisciplinary expertise. The evidence review and synthesis process as well as the recommendations were
developed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development.

Methods for evidence synthesis

The key questions from the current mhGAP guideline were reviewed and areas where update was
appropriate were identified based on the feedback from implementation activities, health care providers
and regular monitoring of evidence. New key questions were identified based on the feedback received from
users of the mhGAP guideline in the countries. There were 29 key questions used to update the guideline.
These were formulated using the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). The
review and synthesis of evidence was carried out through systematic searches. For each of the key questions
included in the update process, an evidence profile was constructed using WHO guideline development
procedures. Evidence profiles summarise the evidence retrieved, provide the assessment of the quality of
evidence wherever possible using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
(GRADE) methodology, and present discussion of values, preferences, benefits, harms and feasibility.

Translating evidence into recommendations

Within the evidence profile, the section entitled “evidence to recommendations” presents a synopsis of the
evidence (benefits and harms of the intervention) and the quality of evidence according to the GRADE
approach, and it discusses values and preferences and the feasibility of the intervention under
consideration. Based on the evaluation of the above criteria, the GDG proposed the strength of each
recommendation as either strong or conditional.

A “strong” recommendation suggests that the GDG agreed that the quality of the evidence combined with
certainty about the values and preferences and the feasibility of the recommendation meant it should be
followed in all or almost all circumstances. A “conditional” recommendation suggests less certainty about
the quality of evidence and variation values and preferences and feasibility, leading to circumstances in
which the recommendation may not apply.

Summary of recommendations
The following table summarizes the recommendations for the mhGAP Guideline Update 2015. They should
be read together with their corresponding remarks reported later in this document. Definition and
description of interventions, together with the evidence retrieved and analysis of values and preferences
and feasibility issues leading to these recommendations can be found in individual evidence profiles.

mhGAP Recommendation
Priority
Condition
DEP1. Antidepressant medication in comparison with psychological treatment for
Depression moderate-severe depressive disorder [New 2015]
As first-line therapy, health care providers may select psychological treatments (such
as behavioural activation [BA], cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT], or interpersonal
psychotherapy [IPT]) or antidepressant medication (such as selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]). They should keep in
mind the possible adverse effects associated with antidepressant medications, the
ability to deliver either intervention (in terms of expertise, and/or treatment
availability), and individual preferences.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 4

 (Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

DEP2. Comparative effectiveness of different formats of psychological treatments

for depressive disorder [New 2015]

Health care providers can offer different treatment formats of WHO’s recommended,
structured psychological interventions for adults and older adolescents with
depressive disorder. These include behavioural activation, cognitive behavioural
therapy (CBT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), problem-solving treatment as an
adjunct treatment (e.g. in combination with antidepressants). Different treatment
formats for consideration include (a) individual and/or group face-to-face
psychological treatments delivered by professionals and supervised lay therapists, as
well as (b) self-help psychological treatment.
While face-to-face psychological treatment or guided self-help psychological
treatment are likely to have better outcomes than unguided self-help, the latter may
be suitable for those people who either (a) do not have access to face-to-face
psychological treatment or guided self-help psychological treatment or (b) are not
willing to access such treatments.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence.)

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 5

Psychosis PSY1. Role of depot antipsychotic medication in long-term antipsychotic treatment
including [Updated 2015]
schizophr-
In people with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia) requiring long-term
enia and
antipsychotic treatment, depot antipsychotics can be offered instead of oral
bipolar
medications as part of a treatment plan.
disorder
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence.)

PSY2. Antipsychotics and mood stabilizers (lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine) for

maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder [Updated 2015]

Lithium or valproate or certain second-generation antipsychotics (aripiprazole,

olanzapine, paliperidone extended release, quetiapine, and risperidone long acting
injection release) can be offered for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. If
treatment with one of these agents is not feasible, first-generation antipsychotics or
carbamazepine may be used. Maintenance treatment should be offered in primary
health care settings under supervision of a specialist.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence.)

PSY3. Recovery-oriented psychosocial strategies enhancing independent living and

social skills (such as life skills and social skills training) [2015]

Recovery-oriented psychosocial interventions (e.g. life skills and social skills training)
to enhance independent living skills can be offered for people with psychotic
disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) and for their families and/or
caregivers.
Facilitation of assisted living, independent living and supported housing that is
culturally and contextually appropriate may be considered as an option for people
with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Careful
consideration should be given to the functional capacity and the need for stability and
support when advising and facilitating optimal housing arrangements.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

PSY4. Recovery-oriented strategies enhancing vocational and economic inclusion

(such as supported employment) [2015]

Recovery-oriented strategies enhancing vocational and economic inclusion (e.g.

supported employment) can be offered for people with psychosis (including
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Such strategies should be contextualised to their
social and cultural environment, using formal and non-formal recovery-oriented
interventions that may be available, and using a multisectoral approach.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 6

 PSY5. Second-generation antipsychotic medications in psychotic disorders (including
schizophrenia) [New 2015]

Second-generation antipsychotics (with the exception of clozapine which is indicated

for treatment resistant psychosis) can be offered for the treatment of psychotic
disorders (including schizophrenia). There is no clinically relevant advantage of one
second-generation antipsychotic over others and choice should be based on
availability, cost, patient preferences and possible adverse effects associated with
each medication.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

PSY6. Pharmacological interventions in adolescents with psychotic disorders

(including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) [New 2015]

In adolescents with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder),

certain second-generation antipsychotic medications (aripiprazole, olanzapine,
quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone) can be offered as a treatment option under
supervision of a specialist.
If treatment with one of the above agents is not feasible, first-generation
antipsychotics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine, perphenazine, molindone) may be used
under supervision of a specialist.
(Conditional recommendation. Very low quality of evidence)

Epilepsy EPI1. Anti-epileptic medications for management of acute convulsive seizures when
no intravenous access is available [Updated 2015]

When intravenous access is not available for the control of acute seizures in adults,
non- parenteral routes of benzodiazepine administrations should be used. Options
include rectal diazepam, buccal or intranasal midazolam, rectal or intranasal
lorazepam. The preference may be guided by availability, expertise and social
preference. Some benzodiazepines (lorazepam or midazolam) may be given by
intramuscular route, which requires additional expertise. Intramuscular
administration of diazepam is not recommended because of erratic absorption.
(Strong recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

EPI2. First-line anti-epileptic medication for management of acute convulsive

seizures, when intravenous access is available [2015]

In adults presenting with acute convulsive seizures where intravenous access is

available, either intravenous lorazepam or diazepam can be administered to
terminate the seizure. Intravenous lorazepam (if available) may be preferred over
intravenous diazepam because of slightly superior benefit-risk profile.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 7

 (Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

EPI3: Anti-epileptic medications for management of established status epilepticus

[Updated 2015]

In adults with established status epilepticus, i.e. seizures persisting after two doses of
benzodiazepines, either intravenous valproic acid, intravenous phenobarbital or
intravenous phenytoin can be used with appropriate monitoring.
Intravenous valproic acid is preferred over intravenous phenobarbital or intravenous
phenytoin because of its superior risk-benefit profile. The choice of these medications
depends on local resource settings, including availability and facilities for monitoring.
Where intravenous infusion may not be feasible, intramuscular phenobarbital remains
an option, with appropriate monitoring. Phenytoin and valproic acid should not be
given intramuscularly.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

EPI4: Anti-epileptic medications for adults and children with HIV [New 2015]

In comparison with enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic medications (phenobarbital,

phenytoin, carbamazepine) or valproic acid, newer generation anti-epileptic
medications that are not hepatically metabolized (i.e. leviteracetam, lacosamide,
topiramate, gabapentin and pregabalin) may be preferred to use in people with HIV
on certain antiretroviral medications (protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside reverse-
transcriptase inhibitors).
If the treatment with newer generation anti-epileptic medications is not feasible,
valproic acid is preferred over the enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic medications
(phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine). In all cases, close monitoring of HIV
viral load and regular clinical monitoring is required. If resources are available, anti-
epileptic medication levels should be monitored.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

EPI5: Anti-epileptic medicines for medication resistant convulsive epilepsy [New

2015]

Certain newer anti-epileptic medications (lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate)

should be offered as add-on therapy in patients with medication resistant convulsive
epilepsy.
The essential anti-epileptic medications (carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin,
and valproic acid) may be of benefit as add-on therapy in patients with medication
resistant convulsive epilepsy.
(Conditional recommendation. Moderate quality of evidence)

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 8

Mental CH1. Caregiver skills training for management of developmental disorders [Updated
disorders 2015]
with
childhood
Caregiver skills training should be provided for management of children and
onset
adolescents with developmental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and
pervasive developmental disorders (including autism).
(Strong recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

CH2. Psychosocial interventions for treatment of behavioural disorders [Updated

2015].

Behavioural interventions for children and adolescents, and caregiver skills training,
may be offered for the treatment of behavioural disorders.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

CH3: Psychosocial interventions for treatment of emotional disorders [Updated

2015]

Psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT),

interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for children and adolescents, and caregiver skills
training focused on their caregivers, may be offered for the treatment of emotional
disorders.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

CH4: Antidepressants among adolescents with moderate-severe depressive disorder

for whom psychosocial interventions have proven ineffective [2015]

When psychosocial interventions prove ineffective, fluoxetine (but not other Selective
Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors or Tricyclic Antidepressants) may be offered in
adolescents with moderate-severe depressive episode/disorder. The intervention
should only be offered under supervision of a specialist.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

CH5: Effective strategies for detecting maltreatment of children and youth within
the context of mental health and developmental assessment [New 2015]

Health care providers should be alert to the clinical features associated with child
maltreatment and associated risk factors and assess for child maltreatment, without
putting the child at increased risk.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 9

 CH6: Community-based rehabilitation for adults with developmental disorders
including intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders [New 2015]

Non-specialized health care providers can offer supporting, collaborating and

facilitating referral to and from community based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes, if
available, for care of adults with developmental disorders, including intellectual
disabilities and pervasive developmental disorders (including autism).
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

Dementia DEM1: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for treatment of dementia

[Updated 2015]

Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine may be offered for people with dementia in
non-specialist health settings. Non-specialists need to be trained and supervised to
ensure competence in diagnosis and monitoring.
The use of cholinesterase inhibitors should be focused upon those with mild to
moderate Alzheimer's disease, where the majority of evidence is available.
Memantine may be considered for those with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease
and vascular dementia. Memantine should not be prescribed for Lewy Body
dementia.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

DEM2 Psychological therapies for people with dementia who have associated
depression [New 2015]

People with dementia and mild to moderate symptoms of depression may be offered
psychological interventions (such as cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT],
interpersonal therapy [IPT], structured counselling and behavioural activation
therapy), in non-specialized health care settings under supervision of a specialist.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

DEM3: Pharmacological interventions (antidepressants) for people with dementia

who have associated depression [2015]

In people with dementia and severe depression, or when psychosocial interventions

prove ineffective, the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (but not
tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) may be considered.
In people with dementia and mild to moderate depression, antidepressants should
not be offered as a first-line treatment.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 10

 DEM4: Oral nutrition supplementation or dietary education for caregivers for
managing people with dementia at risk for undernutrition or currently
undernourished [New 2015]

In people with dementia who are at risk of undernutrition, dietary advice aimed at
food fortification should be tried first, and weight and nutritional status monitored. If
nutritional status is not improved, then oral nutritional supplementation should be
used (in the absence of any clinical contraindication) to achieve weight gain and
restore nutritional status.
(Strong recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

DEM5: Nutritional interventions for people with dementia or cognitive impairment

[New 2015]

In people with either cognitive impairment or dementia, supplementation with

nutrients, or use of Gingko biloba extracts should not be considered to improve
cognitive function, to reduce the risk of developing dementia, or to slow the
progression of dementia once established.
When feasible, dietary deficiencies should be investigated and monitored in those
with dementia and appropriate supplementations should be provided.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)
Alcohol ALC1: Baclofen for relapse prevention and management among people with alcohol
use dependence [New 2015]
disorders
Baclofen can be offered to prevent relapse among people with alcohol dependence
post-detoxification.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

ALC2: Psychosocial interventions for the management of alcohol dependence [2015]

Psychosocial interventions including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), couples

therapy, psychodynamic therapy, behavioural therapies, social network therapy,
contingency management and motivational interventions, and twelve- step
facilitation can be offered for the treatment of alcohol dependence.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 11

Drug use DRU1: Psychosocial interventions for the management of cannabis dependence
disorders [Updated 2015]

Psychosocial interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapy or motivational

enhancement therapy (MET) or family therapy can be offered for the management of
cannabis dependence.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

DRU2: Psychosocial interventions for the management of psychostimulant

dependence [2015]

Psychosocial interventions including contingency management, and cognitive

behavioural therapy (CBT) and family therapy can be offered for the treatment of
psychostimulant dependence.
(Conditional recommendation. Very Low quality of evidence)

DRU3: Supervised dosing with a long acting opioid medication for the management
of prescription opioid dependence [New 2015]

When managing people who are dependent on strong prescription opioids (i.e.
morphine-like), physicians can switch to a long acting opioid (such as methadone and
buprenorphine) which can be taken once daily, with supervised dispensing if
necessary, either for maintenance treatment or for detoxification.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

SUI1. School-based interventions for reducing deaths from suicide and suicide
Self-harm
attempts among young people [New 2015]
and suicide

The implementation of suicide prevention programmes in school settings that include

mental health awareness training and skills training can be offered to reduce suicide
attempts and suicide deaths among adolescent students.
(Conditional recommendation. Low quality of evidence)

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 12

Introduction

Background and context

Mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders are prevalent in all regions of the world and are
major contributors to morbidity and premature mortality. The Global Burden of Disease study 2010 (GBD)
estimated that MNS disorders account for 183.9 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), or 7.4% of all
DALYs worldwide.1 In 2010, MNS disorders were the leading cause of years lived with disability (YLDs)
worldwide.2 The stigma and violations of human rights directed towards people with these disorders
compound the problem. The resources that have been provided to tackle the huge burden of MNS disorders
are insufficient, inequitably distributed and inefficiently used. The result is a large treatment gap which is
more than 75% in many low-and middle-income countries (LAMICs).3

In order to reduce the gap and to enhance the capacity of Member States to respond to the growing
challenge, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the Mental Health Gap Action Programme
(mhGAP).1 mhGAP has provided health planners, policy-makers and donors with a set of clear and coherent
activities and programmes for scaling up care for MNS disorders. An essential component of mhGAP is the
evidence-based guideline for MNS disorders identified as conditions of high priority for LAMICs.

Existing mhGAP guideline

The 2010 mhGAP evidence-based guideline for MNS disorders was developed following the WHO Handbook
for Guideline Development. It was published electronically in the mhGAP Evidence Resource Centre, a web-
based resource that contains the background materials, process documents, evidence profiles and
recommendations (http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/en/).

As part of the mhGAP scaling up strategy in Member States, derivative products based on the mhGAP
guideline were developed, including the mhGAP Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG) for mental, neurological and
substance use disorders in non-specialized health settings,4 and other accompanying training and
implementation materials.

Why a guideline update is needed

In May 2013, the 66th World Health Assembly adopted WHO’s Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan
2013-2020.5 The Action Plan recognizes the essential role of mental health in achieving health for all people.
It indicates, as one of its cross-cutting principles that mental health strategies and interventions for
treatment, prevention and promotion need to be based on scientific evidence and/or best practice, taking
cultural considerations into account. As a consequence, the Mental Health Action Plan builds upon the work
of the mhGAP programme and its implementation is based on mhGAP products, including the evidence-
based guideline for MNS disorders, mhGAP-IG and accompanying training and implementation materials.

2
Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ., Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings of
the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013; 382:(9904): 1575-1586. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61611-6.
3 WHO. mhGAP Mental Health Gap Action Programme. Scaling up care for mental, neurological, and substance use disorders. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 2008. (http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap_final_english.pdf, accessed Spring 2015).
4
mhGAP Intervention Guide for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in non-specialized health settings. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 2010. (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241548069_eng.pdf, accessed Spring 2015).
5
WHO. Mental health action plan 2013 – 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013
(http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/89966/1/9789241506021_eng.pdf, accessed Spring 2015).

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 13

As evidence-based guidelines are designed to reflect current research, regular update is of paramount
relevance.6 Out-of-date recommendations could be one determinant of inadequate patient care: therefore,
conducting regular evaluations and performing updates when appropriate should ensure the validity of
recommendations.

More than four years have passed since the mhGAP recommendations have been issued. Since then, regular
monitoring of the background evidence has been performed by the WHO Collaborating Centre assisting with
the mhGAP guideline process in order to highlight areas where update is appropriate. Furthermore,
feedback from technical experts and health care providers has been collected, together with feedback from
several implementation activities. All of these activities prompted WHO to consider that, in order to
maintain the validity of the mhGAP guideline, an update is warranted.

WHO guidelines and products related to the existing and updated guidelines
The updated mhGAP guideline will be used to maintain the validity of the mhGAP Evidence Resource Centre:
a repository of background material, process documents, evidence profiles and recommendations in
electronic format, organized around the mhGAP priority conditions
(http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/en/).

The mhGAP guideline also forms the basis of mhGAP derivative materials, including the mhGAP Intervention
Guide (mhGAP-IG) and implementation materials. The mhGAP-IG is a technical tool, based on the mhGAP
guideline, which gives guidance for the management of MNS disorders, developed for non-specialist health
settings (http://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/mhGAP_intervention_guide/en/). Other mhGAP
implementation materials developed to assist countries in implementing the mhGAP guideline and
interventions include mhGAP training materials, as well as other toolkits and process documents.

There are other relevant guidelines: A Guideline for the management of conditions specifically related to
stress (http://www.who.int/mental_health/emergencies/stress_guidelines/en/) and a guideline for the
Psychosocially Assisted Pharmacological Treatment of Opioid Dependence
(http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/drugs/en/). These guidelines were produced in 2013
and 2014 respectively; therefore, they are not due to be updated and were not included in this guideline
update.

Some recommendations from the mhGAP updated guideline on epilepsy and seizures will be linked to
Paediatric Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment Guidelines on Fluids, Oxygen therapy and Seizures,
which are currently being finalized.

Objectives of the Guideline update

This guideline is an update of the existing mhGAP guideline for MNS disorders.

The mhGAP guideline has the following objectives:

 To provide up-to-date WHO guidance to facilitate delivery of interventions by non-specialist health

care providers at primary and secondary care facilities in LAMICs.

6
Lyratzopoulos G, Barnes S, Stegenga H, Peden S, Campbell B., International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2012;28(1): 29–35.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000675.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 14

  To assist with the scale up of care for MNS disorders identified as conditions of high priority in
LAMICs, specifically: depression, psychosis (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorders), epilepsy,
child mental disorders, dementia, alcohol use disorder, drug use disorders and self-harm/suicide.
 To provide up-to-date WHO guidance that will facilitate implementing the WHO Comprehensive
Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020 by health care planners and programme managers in LAMICs.

Target audience

This guideline update focuses on the same target audience as for the first edition of mhGAP guideline: health
care providers working at a first- or second-level facility or at district level, including basic outpatient and
inpatient services. The health care providers could be doctors, nurses or other cadres of health workers. It is
also aimed to be used by health care planners and programme managers including national, regional and
district level programme managers responsible for primary or non-mental health secondary care services
and specialists (in mental health, neurology and substance use) involved in training of trainers and
supervision.

Scope of guideline: What is included in this update?

The first edition of the mhGAP guideline included guidance on evidence-based interventions to identify and
manage a number of priority conditions (depression, psychosis, bipolar disorders, epilepsy and seizures,
mental disorders in children and adolescents, dementia, alcohol use disorders, drug use disorders, and self-
harm/suicide). These priority conditions were selected because they represent a large burden in terms of
mortality, morbidity and disability, have high economic costs, and are associated with human rights
violations.
The list of key questions and recommendations issued in 2010 were reviewed for the update process. After
the publication of the 2010 mhGAP guideline, more evidence and programmatic experience has become
available. This revision took the following factors into careful consideration:

(a) New evidence that has been produced: From 2010 onwards regular updates of the evidence base have
been carried out using appropriate search strategies;

(b) Feedback from WHO implementation activities: From 2010 onwards, WHO has implemented several
programmes in LAMICs that were based on mhGAP recommendations and has also collected suggestions
and proposals for future revisions;

(c) Feedback from experts and health care providers: Feedback was collected from international experts and
health care providers who are familiar with using mhGAP recommendations and related products by means
of a standardized form.

Based on the review process, the key questions issued in 2010 were stratified into one of the following four
categories (see Figure 1):
- same population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO), no significant new evidence: no
change;

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 15

 - same PICO but significant new evidence: update existing evidence profile and recommendation;
- changed PICO: update existing evidence profile and recommendation;
- new key question, new PICO: draft new evidence profile and recommendation.

In consultation with the Guideline Development Group (GDG), the key questions were then finalized for
evidence review and synthesis process. No modification of the overall scope of the guidelines was done after
initial approval of the update plan by the WHO Guideline Review Committee. Based on the feedback of GDG
members and according to evidence availability and programmatic experience, the key questions were
further refined.

Figure 1. Flow chart describing the process followed to identify key questions and recommendations to be
updated, and new key questions to be developed

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 16

Guideline update methodology

The mhGAP 2015 guideline update compiles 29 evidence-based recommendations for the following priority
MNS disorders: depression, psychosis and bipolar disorders, epilepsy and seizures, child and adolescent
mental disorders, dementia, alcohol use disorders, drug use disorders and self-harm and suicide.

The guideline development process followed the methods outlined in the WHO Handbook for Guideline
Development7. The evidence quality assessment was conducted following GRADE methodology, where
applicable. For each of the included key questions, an evidence profile was constructed summarizing the
evidence retrieved, the GRADE quality assessment and discussion of values, preferences, benefits, harms
and feasibility. The recommendations were then finalized by the GDG considering all of the above criteria.

Group process
WHO Guideline Secretariat
In order to oversee the guideline update process and evidence synthesis, WHO’s Department of Mental
Health and Substance Abuse coordinated the process of guideline development. In addition, other relevant
WHO departments were consulted to advise and give feedback on the guideline development process (see
Acknowledgment section).

Guideline Development Group

The Guideline Development Group (GDG) was convened to advise on the content and process,
interpretation of evidence and to formulate and finalize the recommendations. The GDG included experts
with multidisciplinary expertise relevant to the guideline and with adequate regional and gender
representation (see Appendix 1). Regular discussions with the GDG took place by email and conference calls.
A GDG meeting was organized in December 2014 for the review of evidence and finalisation of
recommendations.

Peer Reviewers
A group of experts from different disciplines and regions, identified by the WHO secretariat and the GDG,
reviewed the key questions during the initial stages of the guideline update process and also reviewed the
final evidence profiles commenting on the evidence review process, clarity and implications for
implementations (see Acknowledgment section).

Declaration of Interest

Declarations of interest (DoI) were requested from GDG members, experts involved in the evidence review
process and from peer reviewers. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, interests
were reviewed as per the following categories: financial (any income or support that is related to, or could
be affected by, the outcome of this guideline update) and academic and public positions (any interest that
could be reasonably perceived to affect an individual’s objectivity and independence while working on this
guideline update). The following possibilities were foreseen: (a) the conflict of interest requires no action

7
World Health Organization. WHO handbook for guideline development – 2nd edition. World Health Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 17

beyond declaration at the meeting and reporting in the final guideline; (b) the conflict of interest is
significant but related to only some areas of the GDG work in which case the participant will not participate
when the group considers these areas and will not have access to the relevant documents; (c) the conflict of
interest is such that participation in the discussion is appropriate, but the member will be recused for
development and ratification of recommendations; or (d) the conflict of interest is such as to preclude
participation.

Managing Conflict of Interest

The WHO secretariat noted any potential financial, academic and positional conflicts of interest and
summarized these. In the case of a conflict of interest among GDG members, the WHO secretariat decided
whether and to what extent the person could participate in the guideline development. GDG members
declared potential conflicts of interest in their forms. A ‘Note for the Record’ was developed following
consultation with the Director of the Department (see Appendix 2). The overview of declarations can be
found in Appendix 3). At the GDG meeting in December 2014, the information on declaration of interest was
presented as per the Note for the Record, and GDG members were given the opportunity to comment or
express concern about declared interests of another group member. No further comments were received.

Evidence synthesis

The evidence profiles and GRADE tables were developed according to the following process:
 The PICO questions were defined as previously described. The outcomes were selected and
prioritized by WHO Secretariat in consultation with the GDG members.
 The search strategy for each evidence profile was developed, in consultation with WHO librarian or
other experts in information retrieval. Comprehensive searches of major bibliographic databases
(see Appendix 4) were conducted in order to identify one or more systematic review(s) that match
the PICO terms. When possible, high-quality and recent systematic reviews were used to draft
evidence profiles. If only low-quality or not recent systematic reviews were identified, new
systematic reviews were commissioned.
 The evidence retrieval and synthesis was carried out as per the WHO Handbook for Guideline
Development (see Figure 2).
 The evidence profiles were developed according to the following structure:
o Background information
o Information on PICO (Population/ Intervention / Comparison / Outcome)
o Search strategy
o Summary table of evidence used as per the PICO
o Narrative description of studies included in the analysis
o GRADE tables (or other presentation of quality assessment if GRADE was not possible,
e.g. in case of pharmacokinetic data)
o Additional evidence not included in GRADE tables
o Summary of evidence
o Evidence to recommendation table
All evidence profiles can be found in Annex 1.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 18

Figure 2. From key questions identified requiring an update to evidence profiles: flow-chart describing the
process to identify, summarize and rate the evidence for each key question

Key questions

PICO table(s) for each key question

Systematic review(s) providing evidence for each outcome

GRADE table(s) using GRADEpro software

Quality of evidence for each outcome

Quantitative summmary of evidence for each outcome

Narrative description of evidence that is not included in GRADE tables

The quality assessment was conducted according to the GRADE methodology 8. This considered study design
(Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] or observational studies), risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness,
imprecision and risk of reporting bias. The quality of evidence for each intervention was graded as high,
moderate, low or very low according to the considerations listed. Quality of evidence is defined as the extent
to which one could be confident that an estimate of effect or association was correct. The implications of
these categories are detailed in Table 1. Guiding principles describing how to assess each of the criteria of
the GRADE methodology were prepared in advance and provided to technical experts (see Appendix 5), to

8
The GRADE methodology can be found at http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 19

ensure transparency and consistency across all evidence profiles. All GRADE tables are included in their
respective evidence profile.
Table 1. The quality of evidence in GRADE

Level of Rationale
evidence

High We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate We are moderately confident in the effect estimate:. the true effect is likely to be close to
the estimate of the effect but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

Low Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially
different from the estimate of the effect.

Very low We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be
substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
nd
WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, 2 edition 2014

Translating evidence into recommendations

The ‘Evidence to recommendation table’ was included in the evidence profiles capturing benefits and/or
harms, quality of evidence, values and preferences, feasibility, and the recommendation and remarks. The
GDG considered benefits, harms, values, preferences and feasibility for developing the recommendation and
its strength.

Evidence on Benefits and Harms

The evidence on benefits and harms was summarized based on the review and synthesis process including
the GRADE tables, along with the presentation of the quality of evidence.
Values and Preferences
This section details issues that may give rise to preferences in favour of or against the intervention among
those affected by the recommendation. Some of the values and preferences that were considered during
the preparation of the evidence profiles and during the discussion with the GDG panel included:
o Protection of human rights and dignity (e.g., interventions that are sometimes provided on a non-
voluntary basis)
o Prevention of discrimination (and stigma)
o Prevention of medicalization of social problems
o Promotion of individual and family members’ capacity and skills
Values and preferences information was based on the expert knowledge of GDG members, external expert
reviewers and other technical experts.
Feasibility
This section considered the issues around feasibility and resource use based on GDG members and experts
knowledge and experience from implementation of the guideline, especially in LAMICs. Some of the

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 20

feasibility issues that were considered during the development of the evidence profiles, during GDG
discussion and while drafting and finalising the recommendations and accompanying remarks included:
o Inclusion in the WHO Essential Medicines List and likely availability of medication in LAMICs
o Acquisition cost
o Availability of adequately trained health care providers in LAMIC for delivery of this intervention
o Specific training requirements
o Specific laboratory requirements
o Other equipment requirements
o Continuous supply of medication (comment if sudden disruption of supply could have harmful
consequences, e.g., for anti-epileptics)
o Specific supervision requirements

Strength of recommendation
The strength of a recommendation expresses the degree to which the GDG is confident in the balance
between the desirable and undesirable consequences of implementing the recommendation. When the GDG
was very certain about this balance (i.e. the desirable consequences clearly outweigh the undesirable
consequences), it issued a strong recommendation in favour of an intervention. When it was uncertain
about this balance, however, it issued a conditional recommendation. The table below based on the WHO
Handbook for Guideline Development provides an aid to interpreting the strength of a recommendation.

Audience Strong recommendation Conditional recommendation

Patients Most individuals in this situation would Most individuals in this situation would
want the recommended course of want the suggested course of action, but
action; only a small proportion would many would not.
not.

Clinicians Most individuals should receive the Different choices will be appropriate for
intervention. individual patients, who will require
assistance in arriving at a management
decision consistent with his or her values
and preferences.

Policymakers The recommendation can be adopted Policy-making will require substantial

as policy in most situations. debate and involvement of various
stakeholders.

In some cases the GDG proposed a strong recommendation even with low quality of evidence if the benefits
of the intervention significantly outweighed the harms associated with the intervention or if there were
strong values and preferences or because of feasibility of implementation. For example, if the quality of the
evidence for an intervention is low, but not using the intervention could lead to the death of the patient, a
strong recommendation was made. The rationale for the recommendations is included in the evidence
profile with regards to the clinical evidence, values and preferences and feasibility.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 21

GDG meeting

The GDG meeting was held in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2014 with the aim to reach consensus on
the mhGAP Guideline update recommendations. The evidence profiles were reviewed and discussed in
detail. During the meeting, the GDG members considered the following:
i. Summary and the quality of the available evidence on benefits and harms
ii. Values, preferences and feasibility issues related to the recommended interventions in different
settings
iii. The resource use implications of options available, mainly considering the perspectives of
programme managers in low-resource settings

Decision-making process
The decision-making process proposed was the following: After discussion, GDG members would reach an
agreement on each recommendation based on the draft prepared by the WHO Secretariat. In the event of
disagreements, the chair(s) and methodologist(s) would ascertain whether the disagreement is primarily
related to the interpretation of data or the formulation of the recommendation. Draft recommendations
would be revised accordingly in order to achieve unanimous agreement. If unanimous agreement was not
reached, GDG members would vote on revised draft recommendations. Voting would be executed by raising
hands. GDG members would have the option of having their objection recorded. In case of voting, consensus
would be considered as the majority agreement of the guideline group members. WHO staff members
present at the meeting, as well as other external technical experts involved in the collection and review of
the evidence would not be allowed to vote.

Unanimous agreement by discussion was reached by GDG on all the recommendations and their rating and
therefore, no voting was required.

External peer review

The evidence profiles were circulated to external peer reviewers to comment on the clarity of the language
and possible implications of the recommendations. The comments on each evidence profile were considered
by the WHO Secretariat and GDG and incorporated as per the scope of each of the key questions included in
the guideline update process.

Publication, dissemination and evaluation of the guideline

Presentation of the updated mhGAP guideline

The updated mhGAP guideline will be made available in the “mhGAP Evidence Resource Centre”, a
dedicated internet space on the WHO website where guideline materials can be found organized according
to mhGAP priority condition: http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/en/. From the Evidence

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 22

Resource Centre, all the evidence profiles can be accessed with detailed information on available evidence,
GRADE quality analysis, narrative descriptions of the evidence that was not inserted into GRADE tables and
considerations on values and preferences and feasibility issues.

Subsidiary products

The mhGAP guideline is developed in English: however, mhGAP products (which are derived from the
guideline, including the mhGAP-intervention guide and training materials) will be developed and translated
into other WHO official languages (depending upon availability of funding) for wider dissemination, and in
collaboration with WHO Regional Offices.
The updated mhGAP guideline will be incorporated into an updated version of the mhGAP Intervention
Guide (mhGAP-IG) for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in non-specialized health settings
(version 2.0). The mhGAP-IG translates the evidence-based recommendations into simple clinical protocols
and algorithms to facilitate decision-making for clinical assessment and management. It is aimed at non-
specialist health-care providers working at first- and second-level facilities. It is important that they are
trained and then supervised and supported by specialists. The mhGAP-IG is also aimed for health care
planners and programme managers in close conceptual and strategic synergy with the WHO’s
Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020. The updated mhGAP guideline will be similarly
incorporated into other mhGAP implementation materials.

Dissemination plans

Relevant departments in Ministries of Health will be notified of the guideline through WHO Regional and
Country Offices. A briefing package will be prepared for technical officers outside of WHO Headquarters that
will include an executive summary and “Q&A” related to policy and programme implications. In particular,
the briefing will highlight the new changes in the specific recommendations of the guideline.

Capacity building activities will be undertaken through regional and sub-regional meetings and other
activities related to mhGAP and Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan implementation.

Supporting local adaptation and implementation

Local adaptation is necessary to ensure that the most burdensome conditions in a given country are covered
and that the mhGAP guideline is appropriate for the local conditions that affect the care of people with MNS
disorders. Adaptation includes language translation and ensuring that the interventions are acceptable in the
local socio-cultural context and suitable for the local health system.

The implementation of the mhGAP guideline will also be supported locally through the adoption of the
Comprehensive Mental Health Global Action Plan at country level. The national capacity building process will

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 23

also be supported through collaboration with other partners such as other international organizations and
civil society partners.

Monitoring and evaluating quality of the guideline

After the publication of this guideline update, WHO will continue to collect regular feedback from
implementation activities in order to evaluate its usefulness and impact. WHO will additionally continue to
collect feedback from international experts and health care providers who are familiar with using the mhGAP
guideline. This information will be used to evaluate the effects of the guideline on processes and health
outcomes and to ensure the quality of the guideline and identify areas to be improved.

Future review and update

The WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse will regularly monitor new evidence in these
areas with the assistance of a WHO Collaborating Centre. The Department will also collect regular feedback
from country implementation teams on mhGAP products, which are based on the mhGAP guideline.

After two years, literature searches will be carried out to check whether there are any major changes in the
literature of any of the areas covered by the guideline. This will identify new potentially relevant evidence
and enable us to assess whether the new information might have a significant effect on the
recommendations. As two-yearly monitoring will need to be affordable and feasible in the long-term, this is
not based on full literature reviews, but will consist of scoping searches of systematic reviews and other
secondary products such as other evidence-based guidelines. Evidence profiles will be complemented with a
short (up to one page) overview of how new evidence may affect the recommendation.

We plan to update the guideline again in five years using similar methodology to that of this second edition.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 24

List of Recommendations and Remarks

The recommendations for the mhGAP Guideline Update are provided below, including quality of evidence,
strength of recommendation and remarks. These recommendations have been developed following the
WHO Guideline Development process. Definition and description of interventions, together with the
evidence retrieved and analysis of values and preferences and feasibility issues leading to these
recommendations can be found in individual evidence profiles. These should be read in addition to the other
relevant recommendations of the mhGAP guideline (available through the mhGAP Evidence Resource
Centre: http://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/en/).

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 25

mhGAP Priority Condition: Depression

DEP1: Antidepressant medication in comparison with psychological treatment for moderate-

severe depressive disorder [New 2015]

Recommendation
As first-line therapy, health care providers may select psychological treatments (such as behavioural activation
[BA], cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT], or interpersonal psychotherapy [IPT]) or antidepressant medication
(such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]). They should keep in
mind the possible adverse effects associated with antidepressant medications, the ability to deliver either
intervention (in terms of expertise, and/or treatment availability), and individual preferences.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is low to very low, the benefits of either intervention outweigh their harms
with no differences between the interventions in direct comparisons. Indirect comparisons suggest that adverse
effects are likely more pronounced with antidepressant medications.

Remarks:
Sufficient human resources (e.g., community health workers trained and supervised in delivering psychological
treatment) and continuous medication supply need to be made available for psychological and antidepressant
treatment, respectively.
Health care providers should discuss with help-seekers the pros and cons of either treatment (e.g. effects,
including side effects, and time needed) allowing the person to decide which treatment he or she prefers.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 26

DEP2: Comparative effectiveness of different formats of psychological treatments for
depressive disorder [New 2015]

Recommendation

Health care providers can offer different treatment formats of WHO’s recommended, structured psychological
interventions for adults and older adolescents with depressive disorder. These include behavioural activation,
cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), problem-solving treatment as an adjunct
treatment (e.g. in combination with antidepressants). Different treatment formats for consideration include (a)
individual and/or group face-to-face psychological treatments delivered by professionals and supervised lay
therapists, as well as (b) self-help psychological treatment.
While face-to-face psychological treatment or guided self-help psychological treatment are likely to have better
outcomes than unguided self-help, the latter may be suitable for those people who either (a) do not have access
to face-to-face psychological treatment or guided self-help psychological treatment or (b) are not willing to access
such treatments.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
There is low-quality evidence suggesting that the difference between individual and group treatment is small or
non-existent. With respect to face-to-face versus self-help treatment, the research is more extensive, but the
quality is very low. Overall there is substantial certainty in the value of expanding care through different means,
and in the feasibility of expanding the delivery of psychological interventions beyond care by mental health
professionals.

Remarks:
Choice of treatment format depends on social and health systems context.
WHO-recommended structured psychological treatments for depressive disorders in adults include: behavioural
activation (BA), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT). In addition, existing
WHO-recommended structured brief psychological treatments include problem-solving treatment as an adjunct
treatment (e.g., in combination with antidepressants) for depressive disorder.
WHO recommended structured psychological treatments for emotional disorders in adolescents include: cognitive
behavioural therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and caregiver skills training.
Self-help psychological treatment may involve information-technology (IT) supported self-help materials and
paper-based self-help books.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 27

mhGAP Priority Condition: Psychosis (including schizophrenia and bipolar
disorder)

PSY1: Role of depot antipsychotic medication in long-term antipsychotic treatment [Updated

2015]

Recommendation
In people with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia) requiring long-term antipsychotic treatment, depot
antipsychotics can be offered instead of oral medications as part of a treatment plan.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is low to very low, the benefits of depot versus antipsychotics are similar in
terms of hospitalizations and dropouts due to inefficacy. In terms of long-term relapse prevention, there is
evidence that depot antipsychotics are significantly more effective than oral antipsychotics. The evidence also
suggests that depot antipsychotics do not differ in terms of dropouts for adverse events when compared to oral
preparations.

Remarks:
Patients and carers should be offered clear and accessible information in a suitable format regarding the use and
possible side effects of oral versus depot preparations.

PSY2: Antipsychotics and mood stabilizers (lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine) for

maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder [Updated 2015]

Recommendation
Lithium or valproate or certain second-generation antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone extended
release, quetiapine, and risperidone long acting injection release) can be offered for the maintenance treatment of
bipolar disorder. If treatment with one of these agents is not feasible, first-generation antipsychotics or
carbamazepine may be used. Maintenance treatment should be offered in primary health care settings under
supervision of a specialist.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although there are concerns about safety and tolerability associated with long-term treatment with antipsychotics

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 28

and mood stabilizers, there is low-quality evidence suggesting that the benefits of lithium, valproate and certain
second-generation antipsychotics outweigh their harms. In terms of tolerability, both lithium and valproate have a
narrow therapeutic index and can be toxic to multiple organ systems. A further important issue is the burden of
taking mood stabilizers that requires regular blood monitoring.

Remarks:
Treatment with lithium should be initiated only in those settings where personnel and facilities for close clinical
and laboratory monitoring are available.
All studies evaluating antipsychotic treatments have investigated the efficacy and tolerability profile of second-
generation antipsychotics, while no direct evidence is available for first-generation antipsychotics. Evidence was
considered for certain second-generation antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone extended release,
quetiapine, and risperidone long acting injection release).

PSY3: Recovery-oriented psychosocial strategies enhancing independent living and social

skills (such as life skills and social skills training) [2015]

Recommendation
Recovery-oriented psychosocial interventions (e.g., life skills training, social skills training) to enhance independent
living skills can be offered for people with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) and
for their families and/or caregivers.
Facilitation of assisted living, independent living and supported housing that is culturally and contextually
appropriate may be considered as an option for people with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder). Careful consideration should be given to the functional capacity and the need for stability and
support when advising and facilitating optimal housing arrangements.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Randomized evidence supporting the efficacy of recovery-oriented psychosocial interventions is sparse and
inconclusive. However, findings from a number of observational studies carried out in a very diverse range of
settings suggest that benefits outweigh the harms. Overall there is substantial certainty in the value of
psychosocial interventions, which may improve the social inclusion of people with psychotic disorders, as well as
family members and caregivers, while reducing disability and preventing human rights violations.

Remarks:
Life skills training is a recovery oriented psychosocial intervention that emphasises the needs associated with
independent functioning, and is usually part of the rehabilitation process. Social skills training is a recovery
oriented psychosocial interventions included in illness management programs aimed at recovery.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 29

Facilitation of assisted living and supported housing can act as a base from which people with severe mental
disorders can achieve numerous recovery goals. Different housing strategies can be adopted depending on local
resources and local cultural norms. Normal housing (single or shared, if acceptable to the user) or group living
alternatives with appropriate support from a specialist may be crucial in promoting recovery in people with mental
disorders.
Users, their families/caregivers and the community should be involved in the design, implementation and
evaluation of these psychosocial interventions, in coordination with health and social professionals. Professionals
delivering psychosocial interventions should have an appropriate level of competence and, wherever possible, be
regularly supervised by the relevant specialists. Psychosocial interventions should be continued as long as needed
by the user and his/her family and therefore should be planned and developed in a sustainable way.

PSY4: Recovery-oriented strategies enhancing vocational and economic inclusion (such as

supported employment) [2015]

Recommendation
Recovery-oriented strategies enhancing vocational and economic inclusion (e.g. supported employment) can be
offered for people with psychosis (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Such strategies should be
contextualised to their social and cultural environment, using formal and non-formal recovery-oriented
interventions that may be available, and using a multisectoral approach.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Randomized evidence supporting the efficacy of recovery-oriented strategies enhancing vocational and economic
inclusion is sparse and inconclusive. However, findings from a number of observational studies carried out in a
very diverse range of settings suggest that benefits outweigh the harms. Overall there is substantial certainty in
the value of recovery-oriented strategies enhancing vocational and economic inclusion, which may improve the
social inclusion of people with psychotic disorders, as well as family members and caregivers, while reducing
disability and preventing human rights violations.

Remarks:
Non-specialist health care providers should facilitate opportunities for people with psychosis and their
families/caregivers to be included in economic activities in real world settings. Implementation of recovery-
oriented psychosocial intervention programs requires a multisectoral approach such as collaboration with housing,
employment, education and social sector.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 30

PSY5: Second-generation antipsychotic medications for psychotic disorders (including
schizophrenia) [New 2015]

Recommendation
Second-generation antipsychotics (with the exception of clozapine which is indicated for treatment resistant
psychosis) can be offered for the treatment of psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia). There is no clinically
relevant advantage of one second-generation antipsychotic over others and choice should be based on availability,
cost, patient preferences and possible adverse effects associated with each medication.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is low, the benefits of second-generation antipsychotics outweigh their harms
with no clinically relevant differences between individual interventions in direct comparisons. In the long-term,
there are safety and tolerability concerns associated with antipsychotic treatment. A feasibility issue is the burden
of taking medicines that require regular clinical and laboratory monitoring.

Remarks:
Although clozapine is more effective than other second-generation antipsychotics, its use is limited to patients
that have not responded to other antipsychotics, as it may cause agranulocytosis. Regular blood tests during
treatment are required to decrease this risk. Without monitoring, agranulocytosis occurs in about 1% of patients
who take clozapine during the first few months of treatment.
The second generation antipsychotics considered in this evidence profile are aripiprazole, asenapine, clozapine,
iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone, zotepine.
Possible adverse effects include sedation, metabolic, extrapyramidal, cardiovascular and hormonal side-effects.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 31

PSY6. Pharmacological interventions in adolescents with psychotic disorders [New 2015]

Recommendation
In adolescents with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) certain second-generation
antipsychotic medications (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone) can be offered as a
treatment option under supervision of a specialist.
If treatment with one of the above agents is not feasible, first-generation antipsychotics (haloperidol,
chlorpromazine, perphenazine, molindone) may be used under supervision of a specialist.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is very low, the benefits of certain second-generation antipsychotics
outweigh their harms with no clinically relevant differences between individual interventions in direct
comparisons. Some first-generation antipsychotics may be similarly effective in comparison with second-
generation antipsychotics. In the long-term, there are relevant safety and tolerability concerns associated with
antipsychotic treatment in this age group. A feasibility issue is the burden of taking medicines that require regular
clinical and laboratory monitoring.

Remarks:
All studies in adolescents with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) have investigated
the efficacy and tolerability profile of second generation antipsychotics, while no direct evidence is available for
first-generation antipsychotics. However, comparisons of second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotics
in adolescents and indirect evidence collected in adults with psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder) demonstrated the efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics.
Antipsychotic medications can give rise to adverse effects.
The evidence for the use of antipsychotics in adolescents is limited to specialist service settings and does not
follow patients over long periods of time. It is for these reasons that supervision is required and that patients are
monitored regularly for any incidence of unwanted side effects.
As there is no clinically relevant advantage of one antipsychotic over the others, choice should be based on
availability, cost, preferences and possible negative consequences associated with each medication, including
sedation, metabolic, extrapyramidal, cardiovascular and hormonal side-effects.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 32

mhGAP Priority Condition: Epilepsy
EPI1: Anti-epileptic medications for management of acute convulsive seizures when no
intravenous access is available [Updated 2015]

Recommendation
When intravenous access is not available for the control of acute seizures in adults, non- parenteral routes of
benzodiazepine administrations should be used. Options include rectal diazepam, buccal or intranasal midazolam,
rectal or intranasal lorazepam. The preference may be guided by availability, expertise and social preference.
Some benzodiazepines (lorazepam or midazolam) may be given by intramuscular route, which requires additional
expertise. Intramuscular administration of diazepam is not recommended because of erratic absorption.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: STRONG

Rationale:
A strong recommendation was made even with low quality evidence because the risk associated with not
attempting to control seizures (e.g., sequelae of prolonged seizure or death) far outweighs any harms associated
with using the interventions recommended. Although the quality of the evidence is low, there is no clinically
important difference between non-intravenous routes of administration of benzodiazepines compared to
intravenous routes for management of acute convulsive seizures. In a convulsing child or adult, establishing an
intravenous access may be difficult; there may be lack of trained health care workers and lack of equipment in
resource-limited settings. For patients and their families, non-intravenous treatment options may increase patient
and family satisfaction. The availability of non-parenteral formulations of benzodiazepines may be a feasibility
issue.

Remarks:
Relevant scenarios for using non-intravenous formulations may include community settings (pre-hospitalisation)
or in a health care facility that is not equipped to administer intravenous medications or which does not have
trained health care workers.
Intravenous formulations can be used for non-intravenous administration routes. If this should occur, particular
caution should be taken with dosages to avoid administration errors.

EPI2: First-line anti-epileptic medication for management of acute convulsive seizures, when
intravenous access is available [2015]

Recommendation
In adults presenting with acute convulsive seizures where intravenous access is available, either intravenous
lorazepam or diazepam can be administered to terminate the seizure. Intravenous lorazepam (if available) may be
preferred over intravenous diazepam because of slightly superior benefit-risk profile.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 33

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is low, the benefits of anti-epileptic medications outweigh their harms with
intravenous lorazepam appearing to be more effective than intravenous diazepam for management of acute
convulsive seizures in adults. Control of acute convulsive seizures is of critical importance as they are associated
with substantial morbidity and mortality. Both intravenous lorazepam and diazepam are included in WHO Model
Essential Medicine List.

Remarks:
Intravenous lorazepam may not be available in many low-and middle-income country settings.
In field settings, where the environmental temperatures are high and refrigeration is not available, intravenous
diazepam may be preferable over lorazepam because of its better stability at higher environmental temperatures.
No recommendation can be made regarding intravenous midazolam, phenobarbital and phenytoin due to
insufficient evidence.

EPI3: Anti-epileptic medications for management of established status epilepticus [Updated

2015]

Recommendation
In adults with established status epilepticus, i.e. seizures persisting after two doses of benzodiazepines, either
intravenous valproic acid, intravenous phenobarbital or intravenous phenytoin can be used with appropriate
monitoring.
Intravenous valproic acid is preferred over intravenous phenobarbital or intravenous phenytoin because of its
superior risk-benefit profile. The choice of these medications depends on local resource settings, including
availability and facilities for monitoring.
Where intravenous infusion may not be feasible, intramuscular phenobarbital remains an option, with appropriate
monitoring. Phenytoin and valproic acid should not be given intramuscularly.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with substantial mortality and so its control is of critical
importance. Although the quality of the evidence is very low, the benefits of intravenous phenytoin, phenobarbital
and valproic acid outweigh their harms with no clinically relevant differences between individual interventions in
direct comparisons in management of established status epilepticus. Advantages of valproic acid include lesser risk
of cardiorespiratory side effects. Valproic acid is a broad-spectrum medication active against all types of seizures,

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 34

and hence may be a good agent for maintenance therapy after the acute control of seizures in idiopathic
generalized epilepsy or when the type of seizure/ epilepsy syndrome is not clear. However, valproic acid has the
risk of hepatotoxicity and pancreatitis. Phenobarbital carries the risk of sedation and respiratory depression,
which may be increased if it is used after benzodiazepines. Phenytoin carries the risk of arrhythmia and
hypotension and difficulties in administration.

Remarks:
The above medications are initiated when seizures persist after two doses of benzodiazepines.
The choice of the medication can be affected by a number of factors, for example, the availability, cost and side
effect profile of each.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 35

EPI4: Anti-epileptic medications for adults and children with HIV [New 2015]

Recommendation
In comparison with enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic medications (phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine) or
valproic acid, newer generation anti-epileptic medications that are not hepatically metabolized (i.e. leviteracetam,
lacosamide, topiramate, gabapentin and pregabalin) may be preferred to use in people with HIV on certain
antiretroviral medications (protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors).
If the treatment with newer generation anti-epileptic medications is not feasible, valproic acid is preferred over
the enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic medications (phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine). In all cases, close
monitoring of HIV viral load and regular clinical monitoring is required. If resources are available, anti-epileptic
medication levels should be monitored.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
HIV and epilepsy comorbidity is common and presents a clinical challenge, thus in HIV-positive patients requiring
antiepileptic medications and who are also on antiretroviral medications, the optimal choice must be considered
based on the risk of drug-drug interactions and effects on HIV viral suppression. Although the quality of the
evidence is very low, newer antiepileptic medications and valproic acid may provide useful alternatives to first-
generation agents. A feasibility issue is that the newer antiepileptic medications are not on the WHO Essential
Medicine List and so are more expensive. In addition, facilities for routine antiepileptic drug level monitoring are
either not available or can be expensive in many countries.

Remarks:
Further research is needed in the following areas:
- Safety and efficacy of newer generation anti-epileptic medications (e.g., levetiracetam, lamotrigine, , topiramate,
pregabalin, and gabapentin) in patients on antiretroviral medications
- Clinical adverse effects in patients on antiretrovirals and anti-epileptic medications
- Further studies on the effects of hypoalbuminemia, hypergammaglobulenemia, and decreased gastrointestinal
absorption on anti-epileptic medication levels in HIV-positive patients
- Interaction studies and safety and efficacy studies in children on anti-epileptic medications and antiretrovirals

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 36

EPI5: Anti-epileptic medicines for medication resistant convulsive epilepsy [New 2015]

Recommendation
Certain newer anti-epileptic medications (lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate) should be offered as add-on
therapy in patients with medication resistant convulsive epilepsy.
The essential anti-epileptic medications (carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and valproic acid) may be of
benefit as add-on therapy in patients with medication resistant convulsive epilepsy.

Quality of Evidence: Moderate

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
The balance of benefit versus harms is in favour of treatment with newer antiepileptic medications in medication-
resistant convulsive epilepsy. The evidence for essential antiepileptic medications as an add-on therapy was based
on observational studies. There were no head-to-head studies comparing the efficacy of the essential anti-
epileptic medications and the newer anti-epileptic medications of interest against each other for adults and
children with medication resistant convulsive epilepsy. Despite the fact that anti-epileptic medications are
associated with some adverse events, most people with medication-resistant convulsive epilepsy would choose to
be on these medications to decrease the risk of morbidity and mortality. The newer antiepileptic medications are
not on the WHO Essential Medicines List and so cost may prove a barrier to use in low-resource settings.

Remarks:
Medication selection should also be appropriate based on the type of epilepsy as some anti-epileptic medications
can worsen generalized convulsive seizures (e.g., carbamazepine, phenytoin and phenobarbital should be avoided
in patients with myoclonic epilepsy). Patients’ comorbidities and childbearing potential also have to be considered
when recommending a newer antiepileptic medication in those with medication resistant convulsive epilepsy as
some antiepileptic medications are associated with a higher risk of teratogenicity and worst neurodevelopmental
outcomes than others (e.g., valproic acid), or could worsen comorbid conditions (e.g., depression, obesity, etc.).

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 37

mhGAP Priority Condition: Mental disorders with childhood onset

CH1: Caregiver skills training for management of developmental disorders [Updated 2015]

Recommendation
Caregiver skills training should be provided for management of children and adolescents with developmental
disorders, including intellectual disabilities and pervasive developmental disorders (including autism).

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Strong

Rationale:

A strong recommendation was made even with low quality evidence based on the benefits outweighing harms and
the values and preferences indicating that children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities or pervasive
developmental disorders have the right to a supportive and understanding family environment. Low-quality
evidence suggests that caregiver skills training is associated with better outcomes in child development and
reductions in problem behaviours. It is generally agreed that it is important for caregivers to acquire skills to better
enable and support the development, functioning and participation of children with developmental disorders. In
terms of feasibility, evidence supports the notion that training for caregivers of children and adolescents with
intellectual disabilities and pervasive developmental disorders can be effectively delivered by non-specialists in
community settings.

Remarks:
Caregiver skills training should use culturally appropriate training material relevant for those disorders to improve
development, functioning, and participation of the children and adolescents within families and communities.

Health-care providers need additional training to be able to offer caregiver skills training.

Training and education of caregivers and other family members could ensure that children with intellectual
disabilities or pervasive developmental disorders are given the dignity and opportunities that they are entitled to.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 38

CH2: Psychosocial interventions for treatment of behavioural disorders [Updated 2015]

Recommendation
Behavioural interventions for children and adolescents, and caregiver skills training, may be offered for the
treatment of behavioural disorders.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
The available evidence indicates that caregiver skills training and behavioural interventions for the patients can
reduce symptoms for children with behavioural disorders and improve family and caregiver functioning.
Additionally, behavioural and cognitive behavioural interventions can be effective in improving school
performance. There were no adverse outcomes reported, in terms of additional psychological or familial burdens
associated with participation in these interventions. There is value of intervening early to reduce adverse
outcomes associated with behavioural disorders.
Remarks:
The choice of behavioural intervention (eg. behavioural and cognitive behavioural therapies, school-based
therapies, and caregiver skills training), and how it is implemented should be based on the type of behavioural
disorder(s) and the age and developmental stage of the child or adolescent. The child or adolescent’s family
should be involved in the intervention whenever appropriate. The content should be culturally sensitive and
should not allow violation of the child or adolescent’s basic human rights according to internationally endorsed
principles.

The social environment, family context and other psychosocial and physical risk factors that may be contributing
to or exacerbating the behaviour disorder should be considered and addressed, whenever possible.
Health care providers should be aware that behavioural problems may be an expression of underlying emotional
problem(s)/disorder(s).

CH3: Psychosocial interventions for treatment of emotional disorders [Updated 2015]

Recommendation
Psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for
children and adolescents with emotional disorders, and caregiver skills training focused on their caregivers, may
be offered for the treatment of emotional disorders.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 39

Rationale:
For children with emotional disorders, there is low quality evidence that behavioural and cognitive behavioural
interventions can lead to symptom reduction and disorder remission. There were no adverse outcomes reported,
in terms of additional psychological or familial burdens associated with participation in these interventions.
Feasibility depends on local resources, as well as the choice and format of the psychosocial treatment offered.

Remarks:
The choice of psychological intervention and how it is implemented should be based on the type of emotional
problem(s) and the age and developmental stage of the child or adolescent. The child or adolescent’s family
should be involved in the intervention, whenever appropriate. The content should be culturally sensitive and
should not allow violation of the child or adolescent’s basic human rights according to internationally endorsed
principles.
The social environment, family context, and other psychosocial and physical risk factors that may be contributing
to or exacerbating the emotional disorder should be considered and addressed.

CH4: Antidepressants among adolescents with moderate-severe depressive disorder for

whom psychosocial interventions have proven ineffective [2015]

Recommendation
When psychosocial interventions prove ineffective, fluoxetine (but not other Selective Serotonin Reuptake
Inhibitors or Tricyclic Antidepressants) may be offered in adolescents with moderate-severe depressive
episode/disorder. The intervention should only be offered under supervision of a specialist.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although in the long-term there are safety and tolerability concerns associated with antidepressant treatment in
this age group, the evidence suggests that fluoxetine is an SSRI with a favourable benefit to risk ratio. Clinicians
need to be trained in prescribing antidepressants, including side-effects monitoring.

Remarks:
Within the context of this recommendation, specialists include (a) psychiatrists and neuro-psychiatrists (b)
paediatricians and family physicians with post-degree training in the management of adolescent depression.
The decision to prescribe fluoxetine should be made together with the adolescent in line with the evolving
capacity of the adolescent.
Adolescents on fluoxetine should be monitored closely for suicide ideas/behaviour.
Fluoxetine treatment should not be started with greater than minimal effective doses. It is suggested to initiate
treatment with 10 mg once daily and increase to 20 mg after 1 – 2 weeks (maximum dose 20 mg). If no response

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 40

in 6 – 12 weeks or partial response in 12 weeks, re-consult a specialist.
In countries that only have 20mg capsules that cannot be split in half, due to the long half-life of fluoxetine, it is
possible to prescribe fluoxetine 20mg every other day (equivalent to initial dose of 10mg/day).

CH5: Effective strategies for detecting maltreatment of children and youth within the context
of mental health and developmental assessment [New 2015]

Recommendation
Health care providers should be alert to the clinical features associated with child maltreatment and associated
risk factors and assess for child maltreatment, without putting the child at increased risk.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Evidence supporting the efficacy of strategies for detecting maltreatment of children and youth within the context
of mental health and developmental assessment is sparse and inconclusive. No studies have evaluated the
performance of measures in predicting referrals and health outcomes. However, it is generally agreed that it is
important for health care providers to detect child maltreatment. It is recognised that assessment of child
maltreatment requires a clinician who is competent enough to ask the right questions and to respond
appropriately.

Remarks:
Inquiry into child maltreatment should occur in the context of case finding and diagnostic assessment by clinicians
competent to do so and should be followed by interventions, referral and/or follow up. Inquiry and following
actions should take into account the availability of interventions, such as caregiver skills training, and services.
There is no evidence to support universal screening or routine inquiry.
The strategies, including reporting and follow-up of the assessment should be culturally sensitive and should not
allow violation of children’s basic human rights according to internationally endorsed principles.
Examples of child maltreatment include physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and all other forms
of child maltreatment.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 41

CH6: Community-based rehabilitation for adults with developmental disorders including
intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders [New 2015]

Recommendation
Non-specialized health care providers can offer supporting, collaborating and facilitating referral to and from
community based rehabilitation (CBR) programmes, if available, for care of adults with developmental disorders,
including intellectual disabilities and pervasive developmental disorders (including autism).

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Evidence supporting the efficacy of community-based rehabilitation for adults with developmental disorders is
sparse and inconclusive. The provision of psychosocial rehabilitation is in line with internationally endorsed
principles on the rights of people with disabilities.

Remarks:
Intervention programmes should be developed and adapted taking into consideration the sociocultural context
and with involvement of program users.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 42

mhGAP Priority Condition: Dementia
DEM1: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for treatment of dementia [Updated 2015]

Recommendation
Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine may be offered to people with dementia in non-specialist health
settings. Non-specialists need to be trained and supervised to ensure competence in diagnosis and monitoring.
The use of cholinesterase inhibitors should be focused upon those with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease,
where the majority of evidence is available.
Memantine may be considered for those with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.
Memantine should not be prescribed for Lewy Body dementia.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine offer symptomatic benefits in cognitive, functional, global and
behavioural outcomes, although the size of this benefit is uncertain and the quality of the evidence very low.
Adverse effects and safety in the long-term may represent serious concerns. Dementia diagnosis and subtype
definition and management with the above medications require training, supervision and support. Moreover
these medications are associated with high acquisition costs.

Remarks:
Consideration should be given to adherence and monitoring of adverse effects.

DEM2: Psychological therapies for people with dementia who have associated depression
[New 2015]

Recommendation
People with dementia and mild to moderate symptoms of depression may be offered psychological interventions
(such as cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT], interpersonal therapy [IPT], structured counselling and behavioural
activation therapy), in non-specialized health care settings under supervision of a specialist.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Depression is common among people with dementia and is associated with significant adverse effects, including
decrease in quality of life, increased need for institutionalization, greater health care utilization, higher mortality

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 43

rates and increased caregiver burden. There is limited low quality evidence that the use of psychological
treatments may reduce symptoms of depression in this population. Delivery of these interventions require
adequate training and supervision of non-specialist health care provider.

Remarks:
Psychological interventions may not be feasible as a treatment for people with severe dementia and symptoms of
depression due to impaired cognitive function.
It is possible to train non-specialist health care workers to provide psychological treatments with the close
supervision of a specialist.
None of the primary studies available on psychological interventions were carried out in low- or middle-income
countries.
The type of psychosocial intervention offered should be based upon the capacity of health care workers and
patient preferences.

DEM3: Pharmacological interventions (antidepressants) for people with dementia who have
associated depression [2015]

Recommendation
In people with dementia and severe depression, or when psychosocial interventions prove ineffective, the use of
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (but not tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) may be considered.
In people with dementia and mild to moderate depression, antidepressants should not be offered as a first-line
treatment.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
The evidence to support the use of antidepressants for the treatment of comorbid depression in dementia is
inconclusive. Clinicians must be vigilant regarding the potential side-effects of antidepressants in this population,
especially tricyclic antidepressants, as they are associated with side-effects that are potentially more problematic
for elderly patients.

Remarks:
This evidence implies a need to change current practice of antidepressants being the first-line treatment of
depression in individuals with dementia.
Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are associated with more adverse effects than are selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors (SSRIs) in older adults.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 44

DEM4: Oral nutrition supplementation or dietary education for caregivers for managing
people with dementia at risk of undernutrition or currently undernourished [New 2015]

Recommendation
In people with dementia who are at risk of undernutrition, dietary advice aimed at food fortification should be
tried first, and weight and nutritional status monitored. If nutritional status is not improved, then oral nutritional
supplementation should be used (in the absence of any clinical contraindication) to achieve weight gain and
restore nutritional status.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: STRONG

Rationale:
Undernutrition is common among people with dementia and is associated with significant adverse effects,
including more rapid clinical progression and cognitive decline, hospitalization, falls and death. There is evidence
that the use of oral nutritional supplementation is efficacious in attaining clinically significant weight gain in
people with dementia who are undernourished or at risk of undernutrition, although the quality of the evidence is
low. However oral nutritional supplementation is generally well tolerated among people with dementia and there
is no evidence of any significant harms. Caregiver anxiety over their inability to achieve adequate nutrition and to
stabilize the weight of the cared-for-person with dementia is a significant source of caregiver strain. A strong
recommendation was made even with low quality evidence because the risk and negative health effects of
malnutrition are serious and outweigh any harm that could be associated with the recommended treatment.

Remarks:
People with dementia should be regularly assessed for weight loss and nutritional status. For those who are found
to be undernourished or at risk of undernutrition, an assessment should be carried out for general health status,
dietary habits, and for the presence of any adverse feeding behaviours. Suspicion of serious underlying physical
disease should trigger an urgent referral for medical assessment.

DEM5: Nutritional interventions for people with dementia or cognitive impairment [New 2015]

Recommendation
In people with either cognitive impairment or dementia, supplementation with nutrients, or use of Gingko biloba
extracts should not be considered to improve cognitive function, to reduce the risk of developing dementia or to
slow the progression of dementia once established.
When feasible, dietary deficiencies should be investigated and monitored in those with dementia and appropriate
supplementations should be provided.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 45

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Current evidence does not suggest any benefit in people with dementia or those with cognitive impairment, with
micronutrient supplementation (vitamin B complex, vitamin E, Omega-3) or Ginkgo biloba extract or
Mediterranean diet, the quality of evidence is very low and at present this should be considered inconclusive.

Remarks:
None of the primary studies available have been carried out in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, very
few randomized controlled trials to date on supplementation have been carried out in the patient groups who are
deficient in the relevant micronutrient.
Vitamin E supplementation in those with dementia and adherence to a Mediterranean diet in cognitively healthy
older adults may have some potential benefits on cognitive function: however, further research is required.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 46

mhGAP Priority Condition: Alcohol use disorders

ALC1: Baclofen for relapse prevention and management among people with alcohol
dependence [New 2015]

Recommendation
Baclofen can be offered to prevent relapse among people with alcohol dependence post-detoxification.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
There is short-term evidence suggesting that baclofen improves abstinence from alcohol compared to placebo.
There were no serious side effects reported; however, baclofen can cause sedation and cessation of baclofen can
be associated with a mild benzodiazepine-like withdrawal syndrome. Patients value affordable and available
treatments for alcohol dependence. Baclofen is available in generic form and is inexpensive. Baclofen may not
available in all countries and is not registered for the use of alcohol dependence.

Remarks:
A dose of 10mg three times a day is recommended initially, but can be increased to 20mg three times a day if
needed.
Baclofen should be reduced gradually rather than stopped abruptly because of the risk of a mild benzodiazepine
withdrawal-like syndrome.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 47

ALC2: Psychosocial interventions for the management of alcohol dependence [2015]

Recommendation ALC 2:
Psychosocial interventions including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), couples therapy, psychodynamic
therapy, behavioural therapies, social network therapy, contingency management and motivational interventions,
and twelve-step facilitation can be offered for the treatment of alcohol dependence.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is low, the benefits of psychosocial interventions outweigh their harms for
the management of alcohol dependence. Alcohol dependence produces significant distress and decreased
functioning. In terms of managing alcohol dependence people would value being able about their alcohol use and
related psychological and social problems. They would also value being abstinent and reducing their drinking.

Remarks:
The list above contains those examples of structured psychosocial support that have been shown to be effective.
Given the nature of psychosocial support and the limited number of countries in which the psychosocial support
has been tested, it may be useful to introduce measures to routinely monitor the effectiveness of treatment, such
as the retention rate and the rates of drug use in treatment, in order to know that that the treatment provided is
effective.
Non-specialist health care providers require training in and supervision for delivery of psychosocial interventions.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 48

mhGAP Priority Condition: Drug use disorders
DRU1: Psychosocial interventions for the management of cannabis dependence [Updated
2015]

Recommendation
Psychosocial interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or motivational enhancement therapy
(MET) or family therapy can be offered for the management of cannabis dependence.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is low, the benefits of psychosocial interventions outweigh their harms with
no clinically relevant differences between individual interventions in direct comparisons. Cannabis disorders can
produce significant distress and decreased functioning among some individuals. In terms of managing cannabis
dependence, people would positively value being able to talk about their drug use and related psychological and
social problems.

Remarks:
There may also be a role for family interventions, group interventions, and 12 step interventions.
Other forms of psychosocial support may be effective, but the evidence for this is lacking at this stage.
Non-specialist health care providers require training in and supervision for delivery of psychosocial interventions.

DRU2: Psychosocial interventions for the management of psychostimulant dependence

[2015]

Recommendation
Psychosocial interventions including contingency management, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and family
therapy can be offered for the treatment of psychostimulant dependence.

Quality of Evidence: Very low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Although the quality of the evidence is very low, the benefits of psychosocial interventions outweigh their harms.
Generally, there is belief that people would value being able to talk to others about their drug use and related
psychological and social problems, however some value their privacy more. Non-specialist health care providers
require training in and supervision for delivery of psychosocial interventions.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 49

Remarks:
Although many of the research trials use monetary reinforcement, use of contingency management should be
adapted to the culture and population with input from patients.

DRU3: Supervised dosing with a long acting opioid medication for the management of
prescription opioid dependence [New 2015]

Recommendation
When managing people who are dependent on strong prescription opioids (i.e. morphine-like), physicians can
switch to a long acting opioid (such as methadone and buprenorphine) which can be taken once daily, with
supervised dispensing if necessary, either for maintenance treatment or for detoxification.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
There is low quality evidence regarding the benefits of long acting opioid medication for the management of
prescription opioid dependence. However both buprenorphine and methadone are medications that can be
diverted from treatment to illicit sales, which is a cause for concern. Maintenance treatment might be the
preferred option for patients who find it difficult to cease opioids, either because of pain recurrence or opioid
dependence symptoms. In some countries, neither buprenorphine nor methadone are available and maintenance
treatment is not possible due to supply chain issues. National legislation surrounding controlled drugs can also
negatively impact availability.

Remarks:
The prescription of long acting opioids such as methadone and buprenorphine in the maintenance treatment of
opioid dependence is most safely conducted following specific training, or under the supervision of a specialist in
the treatment of opioid dependence. Within the category of “supervised long acting opioid medication”, which
includes methadone, buprenorphine and slow-release oral morphine, buprenorphine has most evidence of
support and has a variety of advantages, including lower overdose risk and better harms profile. However,
methadone can be another option, when buprenorphine is not available. If methadone and buprenorphine
treatment are not available, it may be possible to substitute methadone and buprenorphine with another long
acting opioid which is available and to supervise the dispensing daily if necessary.
When deciding between maintenance and detoxification options, the duration and severity of the opioid
dependence, past history of illicit drug use, and patient preference should be taken into consideration.
Patients should be advised that people with opioid dependence who detox are at a higher risk of overdose having
completed detoxification, as their tolerance to opioids will have dropped.
The duration of maintenance treatment is difficult to determine, but generally, the patient should not be
encouraged to cease maintenance treatment until they have ceased other substance use.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 50

For detoxification, it may be preferable to titrate the pace of reduction to the patients’ capacity to manage the
opioid withdrawal symptoms.

mhGAP Priority Condition: Self-harm and suicide

SUI1: School-based interventions for reducing deaths from suicide and suicide attempts
among young people [New 2015]

Recommendation
The implementation of suicide prevention programmes in school settings that include mental health awareness
training and skills training can be offered to reduce suicide attempts and suicide deaths among adolescent
students.

Quality of Evidence: Low

Strength of recommendation: Conditional

Rationale:
Mental health awareness programmes that include skills training (e.g., problem solving, coping with stress) have
been found to be effective in reducing suicide attempts, although the quality of the evidence is low. Potential
harms may result through a lack of healthcare and community resources to provide care for at-risk adolescents
who seek help.

Remarks:
Most of the described interventions have been administered and evaluated in adolescent populations of 14-17
years old.
Suicide prevention programmes, including the training of programme providers, would need to be
adapted/contextualized to local religious, cultural and legal settings in a sensitive and appropriate manner.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 51

Appendix 1: List of GDG members
LAST NAME FIRST GENDER COUNTRY: LAMIC/ TITLE AFFILIATION EXPERTISE
NAME WHO HIC
REGION
GDG MEMBERS
Achab Sophia F Switzerland: HIC Deputy head of the Addiction Service d'addictologie, Mental Health Psychiatry and psychotherapy: specialist
EUR Division and Psychiatry Department, in behavioural addictions
University Hospital of Geneva, WHO
Collaborating Centre
Albanese Emiliano M Switzerland: HIC Professor of public mental Department of Psychiatry, University Dementia, Neuro-epidemiology and
EUR health of Geneva, WHO collaborating centre Public mental health
Ali Robert M Australia: HIC Associate professor of public Drug and Alcohol Services South Substance use disorders treatment and
WPR health and addiction medicine Australia WHO Collaborating Centre prevention, drug and alcohol editorial
for the Treatment of Drug and board member at Cochrane
Alcohol, University of Adelaide
Barbui Corrado M Italy: EUR HIC Associate professor of WHO Collaborating Centre for Global mental health, guidelines
psychiatry Research and Training in Mental development, expertise in using GRADE,
Health and Service Evaluation, systematic review methodology
University of Verona, Italy
Carli Vladimir M Sweden: HIC Senior lecturer in the National Centre for Suicide Research Self-harm and suicide prevention
EUR prevention of suicide and and Prevention of Mental lll-Health
mental ill health (NASP), Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Chatterjee Sudipto M India: SEAR LAMIC Consultant psychiatrist Parivartan Trust and Sangath, Severe and enduring mental disorders,
Bangalore, India development of severe mental disorders
interventions in LAMICs
Cuijpers Pim M Netherlands: HIC Professor of clinical psychology Department of Clinical Psychology, Depression, Medically unexplained
EUR Faculty of Psychology and Education, somatic complaints, meta-analysis of the
VU University Amsterdam, efficacy of psychological interventions
Netherlands
Dassa Kolou M Togo: AFRO LAMIC Psychiatrist and focal point for Ministry of Health, Togo Implementation of mhGAP for substance
mental health in the Ministry of use disorders in LAMIC
Health
Dowrick Chris M United HIC Professor of primary medical University of Liverpool, Institute of Medically unexplained somatic
52
 Kingdom: care Psychology, Health and Society, complaints, mental health in primary
EUR Liverpool, United Kingdom care, guideline development (NICE) for
depression
Eaton Julian M Togo: AFR LAMIC Mental health advisor for CBM CBM International, Togo, and London Global mental health, programme
in West Africa. School of Hygiene and Tropical management, advocacy, mental health
Medicine, United Kingdom policy, community mental health care
and rehabilitation in LAMIC settings
Humayun Asma F Pakistan: LAMIC Consultant psychiatrist Meditrina Health Care, Islamabad, Depression, psychosocial support and
EMR Pakistan interventions for mental disorders
Ivbijaro Gabriel M Portugal: HIC Medical director and chair of Wood Street Medical Centre, Mental health in primary care
EUR the World Organisation of London, United Kingdom
Family Doctors working party
on mental health
Jette Nathalie F Canada: HIC Professor of clinical Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O’Brien Adult epilepsy, health services research,
AMR neurosciences and community Institute for Public Health, University epidemiology, Chair of International
health sciences of Calgary, Alberta, Canada League Against Epilepsy Guidelines Task
Force and Guideline Process Committee
Newton Charles M Kenya: AFR LAMIC Professor of tropical Kenya Medical Research Institute, Paediatric epilepsy, epidemiology of
neurosciences and paediatrics Kilifi, Kenya epilepsy, neurodevelopmental disorders
in LAMICs
Omigbodun Olayinka F Nigeria: AFR LAMIC Professor of psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, College of Child and adolescent mental health,
President of the International Medicine, University of Ibadan & public mental health, mental health in
Association for Child and Dept. of Child & Adolescent primary care
Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychiatry, University College
Allied Professions (IACAPAP) Hospital, Ibadan
Osei Akwasi M Ghana: AFR LAMIC Chief psychiatrist and medical Ghana health service (Ministry of Mental health program management,
director of the Accra Psychiatric Health), Accra, Ghana mental health law and human rights
Hospital
Pemjean Alfredo M Chile: AMR LAMIC Head of the Department of Secretariat for Public Health, Mental health program management
Mental Health Ministry of Health, Chile
Prince Martin M United HIC Professor of epidemiological Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology Dementia, global mental health,
Kingdom: psychiatry and coordinator of and Neuroscience, Health Service & guidelines development, dementia in
EUR the 10/66 dementia research Population Research Dept, London, LAMICs
group United Kingdom
Rahman Atif M Pakistan: LAMIC Professor of child psychiatry University of Liverpool, Institute of Child and adolescent mental health,

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 53

 EMR Psychology, Health and Society, global mental health, women’s mental
Livepool, United Kingdom health, psychological interventions for
mental disorders in LAMICs, cultural
issues in mental health care
Rawson Richard M USA: AMR HIC Associate director of UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Substance use disorders treatment and
Integrated Substance Abuse Programmes, UCLA Department of prevention, clinical trials for treatment
Programs and professor-in- Psychiatry, California, United States of substance use disorders, addiction
residence training
Sharan Pratap M India: SEAR LAMIC Professor of psychiatry All India Institute of Medical Adult psychiatry, public mental health,
Sciences, Department of Psychiatry global mental health
Sharifi Vandad M Iran: EMRO LAMIC Associate professor of Department of Psychiatry Severe and enduring mental disorders,
Senejani psychiatry Tehran University of Medical service implementation, clinical trials for
Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of treatment of psychosis and mood
Iran disorders
Thornicroft Graham M United HIC Professor of community Health Service and Population Global mental health, guidelines
(Co-Chair)* Kingdom: psychiatry Research Department, King's College development, mental health services
EUR London, Institute of Psychiatry research, mental health stigma.
Psychology and Neuroscience
Vijayakuma Lakshmi F India: SEAR LAMIC Associate professor of Voluntary Health Services Chennai, Suicide prevention, global suicide
r psychiatry Department of Psychiatry and research
SNEHA, Suicide Prevention Centre,
Chennai, India
Weissbecke Inka F USA: AMR HIC Global mental health and International Medical Corps, Depression, medically unexplained
r psychosocial advisor Washington, United States somatic complaints, public mental
health, mental health interventions in
low resource settings, mental health in
emergency situations
Zhao Min F China: WPR LAMIC Professor of psychiatry and vice Shanghai Drug Abuse Treatment Substance use disorders treatment and
president of the Shanghai Drug Centre, Shanghai Mental Health prevention, mental health and addiction
Abuse Treatment Centre Centre, Shanghai Jiaotong University
School of Medicine
* Shekhar Saxena (co-chair), Director, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland

LAMIC: Low- and Middle-income country/HIC: High-income country

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 54

Appendix 2: Note for the Record
mhGAP Guideline Development Group Meeting

3-5 December 2014

Declaration of Interest Review

Responsible Officer – Tarun Dua

The declaration of interest forms submitted by the mhGAP Guideline Development Group (GDG) was
reviewed. An interest has been declared by the experts mentioned below and their significance and
assessment is indicated after consultation with the Director of the Department.

1. Robert Ali – The declared interest was assessed to be significant but relates only to one areas of the
GDG’s work – (i.e., opioid substitution treatment). It was proposed that the said experts is excluded
from the decision making process related to the guideline key question relevant to the area of opioid
substitution (partial exclusion). Please note that the said expert did not participate in the GDG
meeting 3-5 December 2014. After consultation with the Chair of GDG, the reported interest was
publically disclosed to other meeting participants and was recorded and will be disclosed in the
report of the meeting and/or relevant publications.
2. Vladimir Carli - It was assessed that the declared interest was insignificant or minimal as it was only
tangentially related to the subject of the work under consideration.
3. Sudipto Chatterjee – It was assessed that the declared interest was insignificant or minimal as it was
only tangentially related to the subject of the work under consideration.
4. Julian Eaton - It was assessed that the declared interest was insignificant or minimal as it was only
tangentially related to the subject of the work under consideration.
5. Atif Rahman – It was assessed that the declared interest was insignificant or minimal as it was only
tangentially related to the subject of the work under consideration.
6. Richard Rawson – The declared interest was assessed to be potentially significant, as the nature of
the interest is mostly research funding from federal agencies (with some amount from philanthropic
foundation). We proposed conditional participation of the said expert. After consultation with the
Chair of GDG, the reported interest was publically disclosed to other meeting participants and was
recorded and disclosed in the report of the meeting and/or relevant publications.
7. Pratap Sharan – The declared interest was assessed to be not relevant to the area under
consideration.
8. Graham Thornicroft - It was assessed that the declared interest was insignificant or minimal as it was
only tangentially related to the subject of the work under consideration.

55
 Appendix 3: Overview of declarations of interest from GDG
members

Name GDG DOI information Type of Management

member declaration decision
in 2009

Sophia Achab No Nothing declared N/A N/A

Emiliano No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Albanese
Robert Ali No Answered “yes” to question 2a. The university Academic/F Conflict of interest
of Adeleide received a united educational grant inancial (CoI) was assessed
from Reckitt Benckiser to conduct research in to be significant
2014 (240, 000 [no currency]). The company is a but relates only to
manufacturer of health cleaning products, one areas of the
medicines, including buprenorphine, and GDG’s work – i.e.
household goods. opioid substitution
treatment – refer
to the Note for the
Record for details.
Corrado Yes Nothing declared N/A N/A
Barbui
Vladimir Carli No Answered “yes” to questions 1a and 2a. Dr Carli Public CoI is insignificant
works for the National Centre for Suicide or minimal and
Research and Prevention in Sweden. His daily requires no action
work is as a researcher in the field. His unit beyond declaration
regularly applies for grants at national and at the meeting and
international (EU and NIH) and levels for grants reporting in the
related to research projects in the field of final guideline.
suicide prevention.
Sudipto No Answered “yes” to question 2a. Dr Chatterjee Academic CoI is insignificant
Chatterjee was the Trial Coordinator of a Wellcome Trust or minimal and
funded RCT- Community care for people in India requires no action
(COPSI) in 2013, GBP 3,000. beyond declaration
at the meeting and
reporting in the
final guideline.
Wilhelmus No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Cuijpers
Chris Dowrick No Answered “yes” to question 5b. Public CoI requires no
Board Advisor to Mersey Care NHS Trust since action beyond
December 2010. Mersey Care is a statutory NHS declaration at the
organization providing a wide range of mental meeting and
health services in northwest England. reporting in the
final guideline.
Kolou Simliwa No Nothing declared N/A N/A

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 56

Dassa
Julian Eaton No Answered “yes” to questions 1a, 1b, 2a, 5a and Public CoI is insignificant
5b. Dr Eaton is employed as mental health or minimal and
advisor for CBM International and his daily requires no action
routine includes supporting service development beyond declaration
and producing normative materials and at the meeting and
guidelines (1a and b). CBM has funded research reporting in the
in service evaluation (2a). Dr Eaton regularly final guideline.
speaks and writes on mental health, including
for WHO and at WHO events.
Asma No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Humayun
Gabriel No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Ivbijaro
Nathalie Jette No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Charles No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Newton
Olayinka Yes Nothing declared N/A N/A
Omigbodun
Akwasi Osei No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Alfredo No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Pemjean
Martin Prince Yes Nothing declared N/A N/A
Atif Rahman Yes Answered “yes” to questions 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b. Academic/ CoI is insignificant
He holds an academic position conducting and Public or minimal and
supervising research in the field of mental requires no action
health (1a). He is an honorary of a non-profit beyond declaration
NHS trust in the United Kingdom (1b). As a full at the meeting and
time academic, he regularly receives research reporting in the
grants (GBP 2million over 5 years) for mental final guideline.
health research from Wellcome trust, NIH,
Grand Challenges, British council, Alder-Hey
NHS Trust (2a). Prof Rahman is also a consultant
for a Human Development Research Foundation
project in Pakistan (2b).
Richard No Answered “yes” to questions 1b and 2a. Academic/ CoI is potentially
Rawson Richard used to give consultancies to the public significant but
National Rehabilitation Centre of Abu Dhabi for requires no action
UDS 20,000 for three years (1a). He currently beyond declaration
receives a research grant (USD 5,000,000) from at the meeting and
the US National Institute on Drug Abuse for reporting in the
training and screening and brief intervention final guideline.
research project. Richard also receives
evaluation grants from the US government (USD
250,000 per year) and department of state (USD

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 57

 400,000 for two years) as well as from Drosos
Foundation, a charitable non-profit
organization, which aims to improve the living
conditions of disadvantaged people
http://www.drosos.org/en (USD 125,000).
Pratap Sharan No Answered “yes” to question 2a. Dr Sharan has Academic CoI not relevant to
received USD 20,000 between 2011 - 2013 to area and requires
support clinical trials for the effectiveness of no action beyond
Duloxetine for fibromyalgia. declaration at the
meeting and
reporting in the
final guideline.
Vandad Sharifi No Nothing declared N/A N/A
Graham Yes Answered “yes” to questions 1a and 2a. Prof Academic CoI is insignificant
Thornicroft Thornicroft is employed as professor of or minimal and
community psychiatry at Kings College London. requires no action
He is also chair of the Global Initiative in beyond declaration
Psychiatry and the Maudsley International at the meeting and
Institute of Psychiatry. He doesn’t see that any reporting in the
of these declarations should have an effect on final guideline.
his role as chair.
Lakshmi Yes Nothing declared N/A N/A
Vijayakumar
Inka No Answered “yes” to questions 1a and 6c. Public CoI requires no
Weissbecker Employed by International Medical Corps, action beyond
which has an interest in the subject of mental declaration at the
health and distress related to humanitarian meeting and
crises (as IMC has various global projects reporting in the
integrating mental health and psychosocial final guideline.
support) (1a). IMC has paid for some travel
costs before related to WHO meetings (6c).
Min Zhao No Nothing declared N/A N/A

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 58

Appendix 4: Details related to the search strategy and
summation of evidence and electronic databases routinely
searched for each key question

In consultation with GDG members and in collaboration with technical experts, the WHO secretariat
developed the method for the evidence review process for updating the recommendations. The scope of
work included reviewing and commenting on the draft PICO questions, conducting comprehensive literature
searches and evidence syntheses and providing reports, including GRADE tables.

Specifically, technical experts identified for the evidence review process undertook the following tasks:

a. Finalization PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions for the

systematic review. Technical experts reviewed and commented on the draft PICO questions
before they were finalized to ensure that the questions are answerable with the proposed scope
of the systematic review.

b. Development of search strategies, searching of relevant bibliographic databases and

identification of systematic reviews that fulfil the PICO terms. Technical experts, in consultation
with WHO librarians or other experts in information retrieval, conducted comprehensive
searches of major bibliographic databases (listed below) in order to identify one or more
systematic review(s) that matched the PICO terms. Only high-quality, recent systematic reviews
were used to draft evidence profiles. If only low-quality or not recent systematic reviews were
identified, new systematic reviews were commissioned.

c. Preparation of GRADE Evidence Profiles. Technical experts assessed the quality of the evidence
using GRADE and produced evidence profiles for each critical and important outcome.

Bibliographic databases that were searched:

- Cochrane Library
- BMJ Clinical Evidence
- NICE Guidelines
- PubMed/MEDLINE
- EMBASE
- PSYCINFO.
Databases relevant for LMIC:
 WHO regional database: http://www.who.int/library/databases/en/
 Global Health Library: http://www.globalhealthlibrary.net/php/index.php
 WHOLIS: http://dosei.who.int/uhtbin/webcat
 Database of Impact Evaluations: http://www.3ieimpact.org/database_of_impact_evaluations.html
 PAHO Library Catalogue: http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-
bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&base=PAHO&lang=i

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 59

  African Index Medicus (AIM): http://indexmedicus.afro.who.int/cgi-
bin/wxis.exe/iah/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&lang=I&base=AIM
 AFROLIB Database: http://afrolib.afro.who.int/cgi-
bin/wxis.exe/iah/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xic&lang=I&base=afrolib
 ArabPsycNet: http://www.arabpsynet.com/paper/
 EurasiaHealth: http://www.eurasiahealth.org/
 HERDIN NeON Database: www.herdin.ph
 Hrcak: http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php
 IndMED: http://indmed.nic.in/
 IranMedex: http://www.iranmedex.com/english/index.asp
 KoreaMed: http://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php
 LILACS: http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-
bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&base=LILACS&lang=i
 Africal Journals OnLine (AJOL): http://www.ajol.info/

Scientific journals with a specific interest for LAMICs that were hand-searched:

- BMC International Health and Human Rights

- Bulletin of the World Health Organization
- Health Policy and Planning
- International Journal of Mental Health Systems
- Lancet Global Health
- PLoS Medicine

Search outputs grouped into

(1) Guidelines;
(2) Systematic reviews; and
(3) Individual studies
which were searched if systematic reviews were not available and/or depending on the PICO question.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 60

Appendix 5: Guiding principles for technical experts to assess
the quality of evidence included in evidence profiles

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

In order to assess the quality of evidence using the GRADE template, it is essential that raters agree on basic
criteria to be used to downgrade or upgrade the evidence. This is required to enhance the consistency and
reliability of ratings.

General principles:

(1) A first rater grades the quality of evidence for each outcome, and summarizes findings using the GRADE
template for each outcome. Ratings are required to be checked for consistency by a second member of the
review group. Agreement between raters is reached (a third rater is involved in case of disagreement).

(2) When assessing the quality of evidence, the GRADE general approach is followed:

- GRADE is not a quantitative system for grading the quality of evidence. Each factor for downgrading or
upgrading does not reflect discrete categories. Instead, each factor reflects a continuum within each
category and among the categories. When the body of evidence is intermediate with respect to a particular
factor, the decision about whether a study falls above or below the threshold for up- or downgrading the
quality (by one or more factors) depends on judgment.

- Despite the limitations of breaking continua into categories, treating each criterion for rating quality up or
down as discrete categories enhances transparency. Indeed, the great merit of GRADE is not that it ensures
reproducible judgments but that it requires explicit judgment that is made transparent to users.

NOTE: Observational studies that have been downgraded to very low quality for any reason should not be
upgraded.

(3) To achieve transparency and implicity, the GRADE system classifies the quality of evidence in one of four
grades:

Grade Definition

Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the

High
estimate of effect.

Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence

Moderate
in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our

Low
confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Very low Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 61

(4) According to the GRADE system, raters are required to make a judgement on studies included in
systematic reviews with respect to the following criteria:

A. LIMITATIONS (RISK OF BIAS)

B. INCONSISTENCY
C. INDIRECTNESS
D. IMPRECISION

(5) REPORTING BIAS

(A) LIMITATIONS (risk of bias)

Definition: Limitations in the study design and implementation may bias the estimates of the treatment
effect.

Our confidence in the estimate of the effect and in the following recommendation decreases if studies suffer
from major limitations. The more serious limitations are, the more likely it is that the quality of evidence is
downgraded. Our confidence in an estimate of effect decreases if studies suffer from major limitations that
are likely to result in a biased assessment of the intervention effect. For randomized trials, the following
limitations are likely to result in biased results: lack of allocation concealment, lack of blinding, incomplete
accounting of patients and outcome events, selective outcome reporting, other (for further details see the
GRADE profiler instructions).

The following criteria are followed by WHO raters on LIMITATIONS:

If one or more of the three criteria reported below is not met in up to 10% of trials included in the systematic
review = no downgrading (negligible limitations)

If one or more of the three criteria reported below is not met in 10-30% of trials included in the systematic
review = - 1 (serious limitations)

If one or more of the three criteria reported below is not met in more than 30% of trials included in the
systematic review = - 2 (very serious limitations)

The three criteria are:

(1) trials are described as randomised;

(2) outcome assessment is described as masked;

(3) dropout rate (both treatment arms) is below or equal to 30% (and dropouts are similarly distributed
between treatment arms).

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 62

(B) INCONSISTENCY

Definition: Inconsistency refers to an unexplained heterogeneity of results across studies.

Widely differing estimates of the treatment effect (i.e. heterogeneity or variability in results) across studies
suggest true differences in underlying treatment effect. When heterogeneity exists, but investigators fail to
identify a plausible explanation, the quality of evidence is downgraded by one or two levels, depending on
the magnitude of the inconsistency in the results (for further details see the GRADEprofiler instructions).
Inconsistency may arise from differences in:

 populations (e.g., medications may have larger relative effects in sicker populations)
 interventions (e.g., larger effects with higher medication doses)
 outcomes (e.g., diminishing treatment effect with time).
Guideline panels or authors of systematic reviews also consider the extent to which they are uncertain about
the underlying effect due to the inconsistency in results and they may downgrade the quality rating by one
or even two levels.

The following criteria are followed by WHO raters on INCONSISTENCY:

If visual investigation of forest plots suggests some degree of heterogeneity (supported by a formal test of
heterogeneity indicating some degree of heterogeneity, for example I-squared between 50% and 75%) = - 1
(serious inconsistency)

If visual investigation of forest plots suggests high degree of heterogeneity (supported by a formal test of
heterogeneity indicating high heterogeneity, for example I-squared higher than 75%) = - 2 (very serious
inconsistency)

NOTE: Raters don’t downgrade for inconsistency when only one study contributes to the evidence base.

(C) INDIRECTNESS

Definition: There are two types of indirectness:

1. Indirect comparison – occurs when a comparisons of intervention A versus B is not available, but A was
compared with C and B was compared with C. Such studies allow indirect comparisons of the magnitude of
effect of A versus B. Such evidence is of lower quality than head-to-head comparisons of A and B would
provide.

2. Indirect population, intervention, comparator, or outcome – The question being addressed by the
guideline panel or by the authors of a systematic review is different from the available evidence regarding
the population, intervention, comparator, or an outcome.

Indirectness may additionally refer to the extent to which the characteristics of those who will deliver the
intervention in the real-world (including context characteristics) match with the characteristics of those who
actually delivered the intervention under experimental conditions (in terms of background education,
training, referral possibilities, context, other features).

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 63

Those making recommendations or authors of systematic reviews consider the extent to which they are
uncertain about the applicability of the evidence to their relevant question and downgrade the quality rating
by one or even two levels.

The following criteria are followed by WHO raters on INDIRECTNESS:

The question being addressed by the guideline panel is different from the available evidence regarding the
population, intervention, comparator, outcome or regarding the characteristics of those who will deliver the
intervention = - 1 (serious doubts about directness)

The question being addressed by the guideline panel is markedly different from the available evidence
regarding the population, intervention, comparator, outcome or regarding the characteristics of those who
will deliver the intervention = - 2 (very serious doubts about directness)

NOTE: If only one study contributes to the evidence base, raters may consider if this affects directness and, if
yes, downgrading may be appropriate.

(D) IMPRECISION

Definition: Results are imprecise when studies include relatively few patients and few events and, therefore,
have wide confidence intervals around the estimate of the effect.

In this case guideline panel judges the quality of the evidence lower than it otherwise would have been
because of the uncertainty in the results (for further details see the GRADEprofiler instructions).

The following criteria are followed by WHO raters on IMPRECISION:

If (a) the overall number of individuals included in trials is low (between 200 and 100 individuals, both
treatment arms) or (b) the 95% confidence interval includes both 1) no effect and 2) appreciable benefit or
appreciable harm = - 1 (serious imprecision)

If (a) the overall number of individuals included in trials is very low (less than 100 individuals, both treatment
arms) and (b) the 95% confidence interval includes both 1) no effect and 2) appreciable benefit or
appreciable harm = - 2 (very serious imprecision)

NOTE: For continuous outcomes “no effect” means a standardized mean difference (SMD) with a confidence
interval that crosses zero; appreciable benefit or appreciable harm means that the upper or lower
confidence limit crosses an effect size of 0.5 in either direction. For dichotomous outcomes “no effect”
means an estimate with a confidence interval that crosses one; appreciable benefit or appreciable harm
means that the upper or lower confidence limit crosses a risk of 2.0 or 0.5.

(E) REPORTING BIAS

Definition: Publication bias is a systematic underestimate or an overestimate of the underlying beneficial or

harmful effect due to the selective publication of studies. Publication bias arises when investigators fail to
report studies they have undertaken (typically those that show no effect).

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 64

Methods to detect the possibility of publication bias in systematic reviews exist, although authors of the
reviews and guideline panels must often guess about the likelihood of publication bias. A prototypical
situation that should elicit suspicion of publication bias occurs when published evidence is limited to a small
number of trials, all of which are showing benefits of the studied intervention.

The following criteria will be followed by WHO raters on REPORTING BIAS:

If the graphical inspection of the funnel plot suggests some asymmetry, or if any other reasons (to be
recorded as footnote) suggest that reporting bias might have had an impact on the overall summary
estimate (for example: unpublished grey literature was not included) = - 1

If the graphical inspection of the funnel plot suggests high asymmetry, or if any other reasons (to be
recorded as footnote) suggest that reporting bias might have had a high impact on the overall summary
estimate (for example: unpublished grey literature was not included) = - 2

A different criterion may be followed by WHO raters in exceptional situations. Explanation should be reported
as footnote in the corresponding GRADE table.

Upgrading the evidence

Please note that the randomized trials downgraded for any reason, can’t be upgraded.

(6) DOSE-RESPONSE GRADIENT

PLEASE NOTE: The dose-response gradient is assessed only in observational studies not downgraded for any
reason.

The presence of a dose-response gradient may increase our confidence in the findings of observational
studies and thereby increase the quality of evidence. Only observational studies with no threats to validity
(not downgraded for any reason) can be upgraded.

(7) LARGE MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT

You should assess if the effect was large or very large and, if so, upgrade the quality of evidence accordingly
for this outcome. For observational studies, only studies with no important threats to validity (not
downgraded for any reasons) can be upgraded.

To rate magnitude of the effect:

 If the effect was not large (RR between 0.5 and 2.0) choose no
 If the effect was large (RR either >2.0 or <0.5 based on consistent evidence from at least 2 studies,
with no plausible confounders) choose RR >2 or <0.5
«this will upgrade the quality of evidence for this outcome by 1 level»
 If the effect was very large (RR either >5.0 or <0.2 based on direct evidence with no major threats to
validity) choose RR >5 or <0.2
«this will upgrade the quality of evidence for this outcome by 2 levels»

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 65

  Explain your choice in a footnote whenever you upgrade the quality of evidence for any reason,
because it is important for others to understand the rationale for your choice.

(8) EFFECT OF ALL PLAUSIBLE CONFOUNDING

On occasion, all plausible confounding may be working to reduce the demonstrated effect or increase the
effect if no effect was observed.
For example, if only sicker patients receive an experimental intervention or exposure, yet they still fare
better, it is likely that the actual intervention or exposure effect is larger than the data suggest. For
observational studies, only studies with no important threats to validity (not downgraded for any reasons)
can be upgraded.

Mental Health GAP Action Programme Guideline Update 2015 66

For more information,
please contact:
Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse
World Health Organization
Avenue Appia 20
CH-1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland

E-mail: [email protected]

ISBN 978 92 4 154941 7