Oral diseases are a major contributor to global disability but remain largely neglected in health policy, especially in low- and middle-income countries. India carries a disproportionately high burden of dental caries and periodontal disease, with limited access to oral healthcare and high reliance on out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE). Despite this, there is a lack of synthesised economic evidence specific to India, which limits informed policymaking and resource allocation. This systematic review aims to assess the economic burden and financial impact of oral diseases in India—at individual, household, health system and societal levels—focusing on direct and indirect costs, including OOPE and catastrophic health expenditure (CHE).

This review will follow the JBI methodology for economic evaluation evidence and adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. A three-step search strategy will be used to identify relevant studies from databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, CINAHL (Ovid), Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO) and Cochrane CENTRAL, as well as grey literature sources.

We will include studies conducted in India that report on the economic burden or financial impact of oral diseases at the individual, household or population level. Eligible designs include cost-of-illness studies, cost analysis, cost-outcome analysis and health expenditure analysis using cross-sectional (including repeated cross-sectional) or cohort designs, as well as analyses based on secondary datasets. Studies using econometric, statistical or modelling methods, with or without comparators, will be included. Mixed-methods studies will be eligible if they provide extractable quantitative data.

Two reviewers will independently screen and appraise studies using JBI critical appraisal tools suited to each study design. Data extraction will focus on direct and indirect costs, including OOPE and financial impacts, such as CHE, hardship financing and poverty effects. Findings will be presented narratively and, where feasible, pooled in a meta-analysis using MetaXL V.5 software.

This review does not involve the collection or analysis of individual patient data. Instead, it will use data from publicly available economic research studies. All data sources will be appropriately cited. Extracted data will be systematically curated and managed using version-controlled spreadsheets and reference software. As this is a secondary analysis of published literature, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific presentations, as well as shared with policymakers and community health organisations via policy briefs and stakeholder outreach.

CRD420251030651.

To assess the implementation feasibility and acceptability of a structured digital psychosocial communication tool (DIALOG+) to strengthen the quality of person-centric care in psychiatric settings within Pakistan and India.

A hybrid inductive and thematic qualitative analysis using individual interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs).

Two psychiatric hospitals (Karwan-e-Hayat and Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre) in Karachi, Pakistan and one psychiatric care organisation (Schizophrenia Research Foundation) in Chennai, India

Interviews were conducted with 8 mental health clinicians and 40 patients who completed the DIALOG+ pilot as well as wider stakeholders, that is, 12 mental health clinical providers, 15 caregivers of people with psychosis and 13 mental health experts.

A technology-assisted communication tool (DIALOG+) to structure routine meetings and inform care planning, consisting of monthly sessions over a period of 3 months. The intervention comprises a self-reported assessment of patient satisfaction and quality of life on eight holistic life domains and three treatment domains, followed by a four-step solution-focused approach to address the concerns raised in chosen domains for help.

Key insights for the implementation feasibility and acceptability of DIALOG+ were assessed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis of 22 IDIs and 8 FGDs with 54 individuals.

Clinicians and patients ascribed value to the efficiency and structure that DIALOG+ introduced to consultations but agreed it was challenging to adopt in busy outpatient settings. Appointment systems and selective criteria for who is offered DIALOG+ were recommended to better manage workload. Caregiver involvement in DIALOG+ delivery was strongly emphasised by family members, along with pictorial representation and relevant life domains by patients to enhance the acceptability of the DIALOG+ approach.

Findings highlight that the feasibility of implementing DIALOG+ in psychiatric care is closely tied to strategies that address clinician workload. Promoting institutional ownership in strengthening resource allocation is essential to reduce the burden on mental health professionals in order to enable them to provide more patient-centric and holistic care for people with psychosis. Further research is required to explore the appropriateness of including caregivers in DIALOG+ delivery to adapt to communal cultural attitudes in South Asia.