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.

There is increasing evidence supporting the effectiveness of scalable mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) interventions delivered by non-specialists for improving wellbeing among migrant populations in humanitarian settings. Balancing fidelity in the implementation of evidence-based MHPSS interventions with their fit to the needs and preferences of new populations and contexts remains a challenge when introducing MHPSS interventions in new settings. This paper describes a community-based participatory approach to MHPSS intervention design incorporating processes to promote local adaptability and fit while maintaining standardized elements of existing MHPSS interventions. We conducted a mixed-methods study to design a community-based MHPSS intervention that fit the mental health and psychosocial needs of migrant women in three sites in Ecuador and Panama. Drawing from a set of community-based participatory research methods, we identified the priority mental health and psychosocial needs among migrant women, co-developed intervention mechanisms that aligned with those needs, matched mechanisms to existing psychosocial intervention components, and iteratively piloted and refined the intervention with community stakeholders. The resulting intervention was a five-session, lay facilitator-delivered group intervention titled, Entre Nosotras (‘among/between us’). The intervention combined elements of individual and community problem solving, psychoeducation, stress management, and social support mobilization to address prioritized problems including psychological distress, safety, community connectedness, xenophobia and discrimination, and social support. This research outlines an emphasis on the social dimension of psychosocial support, as well as a process for balancing fit and fidelity in intervention design and implementation.

Introduction: Despite efforts to detect and treat problematic substance use (SU) among people living with HIV (PLWH) in South Africa, integration of HIV and SU services is limited. We sought to understand whether PLWH and problematic SU were: (a) routinely referred to SU treatment, a co-located Matrix clinic, (b) used SU treatment services when referred, and (c) the individual amount spent on SU. Methods: Guided by the RE-AIM implementation science framework, we examined patient-level quantitative screening and baseline data from a pilot clinical trial for medication adherence and problematic SU. Qualitative data came from semi-structured interviews with HIV care providers (N = 8), supplemented by patient interviews (N = 15). Results: None of the screened patient participants (N = 121) who were seeking HIV care and had problematic SU were engaged in SU treatment, despite the freely available co-located SU treatment program. Only 1.5% of the enrolled patient study sample (N = 66) reported lifetime referral to SU treatment. On average, patients with untreated SU spent 33.3% (SD=34.5%) of their monthly household income on substances. HIV care providers reported a lack of clarity about the SU referral process and a lack of direct communication with patients about patients’ needs or interest in receiving an SU referral. Discussion: SU treatment referrals and uptake were rare among PLWH reporting problematic SU, despite the high proportion of individual resources allocated to substances and the co-located Matrix site. A standardized referral policy between the HIV and Matrix sites may improve communication and uptake of SU referrals.