Search

Background: Alcohol misuse is a significant health problem among forcibly displaced populations including male South Sudanese refugees in northern Uganda, yet interventions are sorely lacking. Developing an explanatory model of alcohol misuse in this population is the first step to designing appropriate and effective interventions. The aim of the current study was to examine alcohol misuse in this setting and to conceptualize an explanatory model of alcohol misuse. Method: A total of 57 interviews were conducted with male refugees (18+ years) with alcohol misuse (n = 17), their family members (n = 15), community and religious leaders (n = 15), and mental health and psychosocial support providers (n = 10) in Rhino Camp settlement in northern Uganda. A thematic analysis approach was used to inductively analyze the data. Results: Alcohol misuse was identified as a significant psychosocial problem among men in this setting. The adversity (e.g. trauma, loss, poverty), psychological distress (e.g. demoralization), perpetuators (e.g. ease of availability of alcohol, family conflict), and consequences of alcohol use (e.g. interpartner violence, exacerbated poverty) were identified. An explanatory model emerged from the data showing a reinforcing relationship in which adversity causes psychological distress, which leads to increased alcohol use via a number of personal, interpersonal, community and societal perpetuators, and over time increased alcohol use amplifies psychological distress which further increases alcohol misuse. Conclusions: Given the need to address alcohol misuse in this population, this explanatory model of alcohol misuse can be used to inform prevention and treatment interventions for alcohol misuse. These interventions should endeavor to address the identified determinants of alcohol misuse while being cognizant of the social and cultural considerations specific to males in this population.

E-mental health interventions may offer innovative means to increase access to psychological support and improve the mental health of refugees. However, there is limited knowledge about how these innovations can be scaled up and integrated sustainably into routine services. This study examined the scalability of a digital psychological intervention called Step-by-Step (SbS) for refugees in Egypt, Germany, and Sweden. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 88) with Syrian refugees, and experts in SbS or refugee' mental health systems in the three countries. Data collection and analysis were guided by a system innovation perspective. Interviewees identified three contextual factors that influenced scalability of SbS in each country: increasing use of e-health, the COVID-19 pandemic, and political instability. Nine factors lay at the interface between the innovation and potential delivery systems, and these were categorised by culture (ways of thinking), structure (ways of organising), and practice (ways of doing). Factors related to culture included: perceived need and acceptability of the innovation. Acceptability was influenced by mental health stigma and awareness, digital trust, perceived novelty of self-help interventions, and attitudes towards non-specialist (e-helper) support. Factors related to structure included financing, regulations, accessibility, competencies of e-helpers, and quality control. Factors related to practice were barriers in the initial and continued engagement of end-users. Many actors with a potential stake in the integration of SbS across the three countries were identified, with nineteen stakeholders deemed most powerful. Several context-specific integration scenarios were developed, which need to be tested. We conclude that integrating novel e-mental health interventions for refugees into routine services will be a complex task due to the many interrelated factors and actors involved. Multi-stakeholder collaboration, including the involvement of end-users, will be essential.

COVID-19 is having substantial impacts on research conduct, including clinical trials. However, there is limited research investigating the impact of the pandemic on the conduct of clinical trials and barriers to the delivery of interventions. The current study contributes to filling this gap by investigating the impacts of COVID-19 and related mitigation strategies in the context of five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lay-delivered psychological interventions for Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Turkey. We conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively selected researchers (N = 14) across all five countries. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. The trial researchers highlighted how COVID-19 has had pervasive impacts across different components of the trial including recruitment, assessment, intervention delivery, and supervision. These impacts were considered to influence the external and internal scientific validity of these trials, as well as some aspects of trial administration such as budgeting and the workforce. Various mitigation strategies to adapt to constraints imposed by pandemic responses were described by researchers, such as shifting to a remote intervention delivery and evaluation or adding COVID-19 measures to better understand the impacts of COVID-19 on outcome data. The current piece provides an account of the impacts of COVID-19 on the conduct of trials of lay-delivered psychological interventions for refugees in five countries. Our findings will be valuable for researchers testing similar interventions during COVID-19 and other public health emergencies.

Mental health systems across the world struggle to meet the needs of present and future populations. People affected by war and forced displacement, such as refugees, have especially high unmet psychological needs. Shifting tasks from mental health specialists to less specialised providers is increasingly opted as an innovative solution to overcome the mental health care gap. Yet little is known about how task-sharing interventions for refugees can be implemented on a larger scale and integrated in existing systems. In this article, we use a system innovation perspective to examine the factors influencing the potential for scaling up a task-sharing psychological intervention for refugees called ‘Problem Management Plus’ (PM+) in the Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals (n=42) knowledgeable about PM+ and the Dutch mental health system for refugees. Findings suggest that the feasibility of wider implementation largely depends on whether barriers like stigma, attrition, fragmentation, competition, legal, and financial challenges can be overcome. Formalising the roles of new non-specialist workers will be important, including developing structures for their accreditation and supervision. There are various possibilities for institutional anchoring of the innovation: in asylum centres, formal health care, and communities. The integration scenarios identified in this study need to be tested, evaluated, refined, and reported in future implementation research.