Search

Background: The global HIV/AIDS response has advanced in addressing the health and well-being of HIV-positive children. Although attention has been paid to children orphaned by parental AIDS, children who live with HIV-positive caregivers have received less attention. This study compares mental health problems and risk and protective factors in HIV-positive, HIV-affected (due to caregiver HIV), and HIV-unaffected children in Rwanda., Methods: A case-control design assessed mental health, risk, and protective factors among 683 children aged 10 to 17 years at different levels of HIV exposure. A stratified random sampling strategy based on electronic medical records identified all known HIV-positive children in this age range in 2 districts in Rwanda. Lists of all same-age children in villages with an HIV-positive child were then collected and split by HIV status (HIV-positive, HIV-affected, and HIV-unaffected). One child was randomly sampled from the latter 2 groups to compare with each HIV-positive child per village., Results: HIV-affected and HIV-positive children demonstrated higher levels of depression, anxiety, conduct problems, and functional impairment compared with HIV-unaffected children. HIV-affected children had significantly higher odds of depression (1.68: 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-2.44), anxiety (1.77: 95% CI 1.14-2.75), and conduct problems (1.59: 95% CI 1.04-2.45) compared with HIV-unaffected children, and rates of these mental health conditions were similar to HIV-positive children. These results remained significant after controlling for contextual variables, there were no significant differences on mental health outcomes groups, reflecting a potential explanatory role of factors such as daily hardships, caregiver depression, and HIV-related stigma [corrected]., Conclusions: The mental health of HIV-affected children requires policy and programmatic responses comparable to HIV-positive children., (Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

There is a growing evidence base on the immediate and short-term effects of adult HIV on children. We provide an overview of this literature, highlighting the multiple risks and resultant negative consequences stemming from adult HIV infection on the children they care for on an individual and family basis. We trace these consequences from their origin in the health and wellbeing of adults on whom children depend, through multiple pathways to negative impacts for children. As effective treatment reduces vertical transmission, the needs of affected children will predominate. Pathways include exposure to HIV in utero, poor caregiver mental or physical health, the impact of illness, stigma and increased poverty. We summarize the evidence of negative consequences, including those affecting health, cognitive development, education, child mental health, exposure to abuse and adolescent risk behaviour, including sexual risk behaviour, which has obvious implications for HIV-prevention efforts. We also highlight the evidence of positive outcomes, despite adversity, considering the importance of recognizing and supporting the development of resilience. This study is the first in a series of three commissioned by President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)/United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the summary provided here was used to inform a second study which seeks to identify insights from the broader child development field which will help us predict what long-term negative consequences children affected by HIV and AIDS are likely to experience. The third study discusses the design of a model to estimate these consequences. Although comprehensive, the review is often hampered by poor-quality research, inadequate design, small sample sizes and single studies in some areas.

Introduction: The Working Group on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support was convened as part of the 2009 Harvard Humanitarian Action Summit. The Working Group chose to focus on ethical issues in mental health and psychosocial research and programming in humanitarian settings. The Working Group built on previous work and recommendations, such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings., Objectives: The objective of this working group was to address one of the factors contributing to the deficiency of research and the need to develop the evidence base on mental health and psychosocial support interventions during complex emergencies by proposing ethical research guidelines. Outcomes research is vital for effective program development in emergency settings, but to date, no comprehensive ethical guidelines exist for guiding such research efforts., Methods: Working Group members conducted literature reviews which included peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and relevant guidelines on the following topics: general ethical principles in research, cross-cultural issues, research in resource-poor countries, and specific populations such as trauma and torture survivors, refugees, minorities, children and youth, and the mentally ill. Working Group members also shared key points regarding ethical issues encountered in their own research and fieldwork., Results: The group adapted a broad definition of the term "research", which encompasses needs assessments and data gathering, as well as monitoring and evaluation. The guidelines are conceptualized as applying to formal and informal processes of assessment and evaluation in which researchers as well as most service providers engage. The group reached consensus that it would be unethical not to conduct research and evaluate outcomes of mental health and psychosocial interventions in emergency settings, given that there currently is very little good evidence base for such interventions. Overarching themes and issues generated by the group for further study and articulation included: purpose and benefits of research, issues of validity, neutrality, risk, subject selection and participation, confidentiality, consent, and dissemination of results., Conclusions: The group outlined several key topics and recommendations that address ethical issues in conducting mental health and psychosocial research in humanitarian settings. The group views this set of recommendations as a living document to be further developed and refined based on input from colleagues representing different regions of the globe with an emphasis on input from colleagues from low-resource countries.

Background.: Suicide is a major global health concern. Bhutanese refugees resettled in the USA are disproportionately affected by suicide, yet little research has been conducted to identify factors contributing to this vulnerability. This study aims to investigate the issue of suicide of Bhutanese refugee communities via an in-depth qualitative, social-ecological approach. Methods.: Focus groups were conducted with 83 Bhutanese refugees (adults and children), to explore the perceived causes, and risk and protective factors for suicide, at individual, family, community, and societal levels. Audio recordings were translated and transcribed, and inductive thematic analysis conducted. Results.: Themes identified can be situated across all levels of the social-ecological model. Individual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are only fully understood when considering past experiences, and stressors at other levels of an individual's social ecology. Shifting dynamics and conflict within the family are pervasive and challenging. Within the community, there is a high prevalence of suicide, yet major barriers to communicating with others about distress and suicidality. At the societal level, difficulties relating to acculturation, citizenship, employment and finances, language, and literacy are influential. Two themes cut across several levels of the ecosystem: loss; and isolation, exclusion, and loneliness. Conclusions.: This study extends on existing research and highlights the necessity for future intervention models of suicide to move beyond an individual focus, and consider factors at all levels of refugees' social-ecology. Simply focusing treatment at the individual level is not sufficient. Researchers and practitioners should strive for community-driven, culturally relevant, socio-ecological approaches for prevention and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]