Search

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization's (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ and its group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ and SbS with Syrian refugees. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The re

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are frequently experienced by refugees. This study evaluates the impact of a brief, lay provider delivered group-based psychological intervention [Group Problem Management Plus (gPM+)] on the mental health of refugees in a camp, as well as on parenting behavior and children's mental health. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial, 410 adult Syrian refugees (300 females, 110 males) in Azraq Refugee Camp (Jordan) were identified through screening of psychological distress (≥16 on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale) and impaired functioning (≥17 on the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule). Participants were randomly allocated to gPM+ or enhanced usual care (EUC) involving referral information for psychosocial services on a 1:1 ratio. Participants were aware of treatment allocation, but assessors were blinded to treatment condition. Primary outcomes were scores on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL; depression and anxiety scales) assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months follow-up as the primary outcome time point. It was hypothesized that gPM+ would result in greater reductions of scores on the HSCL than EUC. Secondary outcomes were disability, posttraumatic stress, personally identified problems, prolonged grief, prodromal psychotic symptoms, parenting behavior, and children's mental health. Between October 15, 2019 and March 2, 2020, 624 refugees were screened for eligibility, 462 (74.0%) screened positive, of whom 204 were assigned to gPM+ and 206 to EUC. There were 168 (82.4%) participants in gPM+ and 189 (91.7%) in EUC assessed at follow-up. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that at follow-up, participants in gPM+ showed greater reduction on HSCL depression scale than those receiving EUC (mean difference, 3.69 [95% CI 1.90 to 5.48], p = .001; effect size, 0.40). There was no difference between conditions in anxiety (mean difference -0.56, 95% CI -2.09 to 0.96; p = .47; effect

AIMS: There is increasing evidence that brief psychological interventions delivered by lay providers can reduce common mental disorders in the short-term. This study evaluates the longer-term impact of a brief, lay provider delivered group psychological intervention (Group Problem Management Plus; gPM+) on the mental health of refugees and their children's mental health. METHODS: This single-blind, parallel, controlled trial randomised 410 adult Syrians in Azraq Refugee Camp in Jordan who screened positive for distress and impaired functioning to either five sessions of gPM+ or enhanced usual care (EUC). Primary outcomes were scores on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25; depression and anxiety scales) assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months Secondary outcomes included disability, posttraumatic stress, personally identified problems, prolonged grief, prodromal psychotic symptoms, parenting behaviour and children's mental health. RESULTS: Between 15 October 2019 and 2 March 2020, 204 participants were assigned to gPM + and 206 to EUC, and 307 (74.9%) were retained at 12 months. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that although participants in gPM + had greater reductions in depression at 3 months, at 12 months there were no significant differences between treatment arms on depression (mean difference -0.9, 95% CI -3.2 to 1.3; p = 0.39) or anxiety (mean difference -1.7, 95% CI -4.8 to -1.3; p = 0.06). There were no significant differences between conditions for secondary outcomes except that participants in gPM + had greater increases in positive parenting. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term benefits of a brief, psychological programme delivered by lay providers may not be sustained over longer time periods, and there is a need for sustainable programmes that can prolong benefits gained through gPM + .

Introduction: The World Health Organization's (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ and?its group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ and?SbS with Syrian refugees. Methods and analysis: Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list. Ethics and dissemination: Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The re, European Union (EU); Horizon 2020; Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020)

Background: Approximately 10% of Syrian refugees currently reside in camp settings, which can impose additional post-migration stressors. With elevated rates of psychological distress and few available resources, task-shifting psychosocial programmes are necessary to provide adequate care. One such programme developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) is Group Problem Management Plus (GroupPM+). Objective: This study aimed to test the safety and acceptability of GroupPM+ in a refugee camp and to identify areas for adaptation in preparation for a definitive RCT. Method: A feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in Azraq refugee camp in Jordan. Inclusion criteria were: (1) Syrian adults aged ≥18 years, (2) parent of a child aged 10-16 years, (3) experiencing psychological distress as defined by a score of ≥16 on the Kessler Distress Scale, and (4) ≥17 on the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Following baseline assessments, participants were randomized to receive GroupPM+ or enhanced treatment-as-usual. Post-assessments were conducted one week following the last GroupPM+ session. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptance of GroupPM+; symptoms of anxiety, depression, PTSD, prodromal psychosis, grief, and child's self-reported psychological distress were also assessed. Results: Of the 207 persons screened, 64 (31%) screened positive for psychological distress. Of the 35 randomized into the GroupPM+ intervention, 24 (69%) completed the intervention. No adverse events were reported throughout the trial. Children whose parents received GroupPM+ had greater reductions in internalizing and externalizing symptoms at posttreatment. 55 (86%) participants completed the post-assessment follow-up. These results demonstrate both the feasibility of conducting the trial in a camp and acceptance of the GroupPM+ intervention by Syrian refugees. Conclusions: Following the feasibility trial, both the implementation procedures and intervention were saf

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased anxiety and depression around the world. Refugees may be particularly vulnerable to the mental health effects of the pandemic because of their higher rates of mental health disorders, trauma histories, and daily stressors. OBJECTIVES: This study used data from a controlled trial of a brief behavioural intervention for psychological distress in Syrian refugees living in Azraq Camp in Jordan to examine the psychological effects of the pandemic on refugee mental health. METHOD: A total of 410 participants were randomized to either the intervention or control arms of the trial and were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Half the sample (199; 48.5%) completed their 3-month follow-up assessment after the pandemic restrictions began in Jordan and 211 (51.5%) completed the assessment prior to the pandemic. Refugees were independently assessed for symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression at baseline and follow-up, and pandemic-related worries were assessed at follow-up for those who completed their assessment during the pandemic. RESULTS: The most commonly reported worries were economic difficulties (82.4%), shortage of essential supplies (71.3%), and infecting others (59.7%) or themselves (51.9%). Refugees who were assessed during the pandemic had less severe PTSD symptoms than those assessed prior to the pandemic. Significant predictors of pandemic-related worries were lower levels of depression prior to the pandemic and greater anxiety during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the specific needs of refugees during the pandemic and suggest that pre-existing mental health issues may not necessarily be the key risk factors for who will experience major mental health issues or worries during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Accessing quality mental health care poses significant challenges for persons affected by adversity, especially in low- and middle-income countries where resources are scarce. To mitigate this, the World Health Organization has developed group problem management plus (gPM+), a low-intensity psychological intervention for adults experiencing psychological distress. gPM+ is a group-based intervention consisting of five-sessions, and can be delivered by non-specialist providers. This paper outlines the study protocol for a trial of gPM+ in Jordan. METHODS: We will conduct a single-blind, two-arm, randomized controlled trial in a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan. We aim to enrol 480 adults into the trial. Participants will be eligible for the trial if they screen positive for levels of psychological distress. Following screening, those eligible will be randomly assigned to receive the gPM+ intervention or enhanced treatment as usual. The primary outcome is reduction in levels of psychological distress at 3-months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include anxiety, depression, prodromal psychotic symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, prolonged grief, daily functioning, economic effectiveness, and change in parenting behaviour. Secondary outcomes also include the reduction in psychological distress of the participant's child. DISCUSSION: The trial aims to deliver a template for affordable and scalable psychosocial interventions that can readily be implemented in refugee settings, and that can benefit both the participant and their child. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619001386123. Registered prospectively on 10/10/2019.

The aim of the present study was to assess the survival of adult porcine islets transplanted into baboons receiving either (I) conventional triple drug immunosuppressive therapy or (2) a non-myeloablative regimen and an anti-CD154 monoclonal antibody (mAb) aimed at tolerance-induction. Group 1 baboons (n = 3) were pancreatectomized prior to intraportal injection of 10,000 porcine islet equivalents (IE)/kg and immunosuppressed with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), cyclosporine and azathioprine. In Group 2 (n = 2), non-pancreatectomized baboons underwent induction therapy with whole body and thymic irradiation, and ATG. Extracorporeal immunoadsorption (EIA) of anti-Galalpha1,3Gal (Gal) antibody was carried out. Maintenance therapy was with cobra venom factor, cyclosporine. mycophenolate mofetil, methylprednisolone and anti-CD154 mAb. Porcine islets were injected intraportally (14,000 and 32,000 IE/kg, respectively) and high-dose pig mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells (3 x 10(10) cells/kg) were infused into a systemic vein. Porcine islets were also implanted in the sternomastoid muscle to facilitate subsequent biopsies. In both groups. porcine C-peptide was measured, and histological examination of liver or sternomastoid muscle biopsies was performed at regular intervals. In Group 1, total pancreatectomy reduccd human C-peptide to < 0.1 ng/ml and induced insulin-requiring diabetes. The transplantation of porcine islets was followed by normalization of glycemia for 15-24 h. Porcine C-peptide was detected only transiently immediately after porcine islet injection (maximum 0.12 ng/ml). Histological examination of liver biopsies taken between days 2 and 19 did not reveal viable islets, but necrotic cell structures with mononuclear cell infiltrates were identified in portal venules. In Group 2, injection of porcine islets into non-pancreatectomized recipients induced a transient hypoglycemia (2-4 h) requiring concentrated intravenous dextrose administration. Porcine

BACKGROUND: Natural antibodies (NAbs) against a terminal alpha1-3 galactosyl (alphaGal) epitope have been identified as the major human anti-pig NAbs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used two synthetic alphaGal trisaccharides--type 6 (alphaGal6) and type 2(alphaGal2)--linked to an inert matrix to remove NAbs from human plasma in vitro. Flow cytometry indicated that an average of 85% of the NAb binding activity was depleted by adsorption with alphaGal6. By measuring the binding of NAbs to pig peripheral blood mononuclear cells and bone marrow cells, we demonstrated that alphaGal6 was more effective than alphaGal2 in removing NAbs, and the combination of alphaGal6 + alphaGal2 did not further increase removal of NAbs. The specificity of the removal of NAbs (IgM and IgG) reactive with the alphaGal epitope by alphaGal6 matrix was shown by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In vivo studies in nonhuman primates compared plasma perfusion through a alphaGal6 immunoaffinity column with hemoperfusion through a pig liver for changes in blood pressure, hematocrit, platelets, and NAb adsorption. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods reduced the level of anti-pig IgM and IgG xenoreactive antibodies to nearly background, but column perfusion caused less hypotension and reduction in platelets than liver perfusion. Four pig kidneys transplanted into monkeys after column perfusion did not undergo hyperacute rejection, remaining functional for 2-10 days, with a mean functional period of 7 days, demonstrating that a pig kidney can support renal function in a primate.