Search

BackgroundInstruments to assess the knowledge about the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, the attitudes toward their role as rights holders, and mental health professionals’ practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion are either missing or lack evaluation of their validity and reliability.AimThe aim of this study is to evaluate the validity and reliability of three instruments developed to fill this gap in the literature, the World Health Organization’s QualityRights (WHO QR) Knowledge questionnaire, the WHO QR Attitudes questionnaire, and the WHO QR Practices questionnaire.MethodsA sample of participants was recruited and completed an online survey. Content validity and face validity were assessed for the three questionnaires. Based on the characteristics of the questionnaires, different approaches were used to assess their construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis, known group validity, and convergent and divergent validity). Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and test re-test reliability using Pearson’s and Spearman’s r coefficients.ResultsThe analyses conducted indicate that the three questionnaires are valid and reliable instruments to evaluate the knowledge about the rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, the attitudes toward their role as rights holders, and mental health professionals’ practices related to substitute decision-making and coercion.ConclusionThis finding lends support to the use of these instruments both within mental health services and in the general population for a better understanding of current knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to a human rights–based approach to mental health in mental health services and the community.

Abstract Background Globally, there is a vast mental health treatment gap, whereby the majority of adolescents living in low- and middle-income countries requiring mental health services, do not have access to adequate care. To improve access, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a range of interventions, designed to be low-cost and delivered by non-specialists. We conducted a two-arm, individually randomised group treatment feasibility trial of a new WHO group intervention for young adolescents with emotional distress (‘Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions’; EASE) in Lebanon. Method The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of the intervention and study procedures. Adolescents aged 10 to 14 years were eligible to take part if they scored above a validated cut-off on the Child Psychosocial Distress Screener. Participants were randomized to EASE or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) control using a 1:1 ratio. EASE consisted of seven group sessions with adolescents and three sessions with caregivers. ETAU consisted of a single brief psychoeducation home visit. Child and caregiver outcomes were measured by blind assessors at baseline, endline (8 weeks post-randomisation), and three month follow-up (20 weeks post-randomisation), with the primary outcome measure being child psychological symptoms on the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Qualitative interviews were conducted with adolescents (n = 13), caregivers (n = 17), facilitators (n = 6), trainers (n = 3), and outreach staff (n = 1) at endline to assess barriers and facilitators related to the feasibility and delivery of EASE and study procedures. Results Of 154 adolescents screened, 67 (43%) were eligible, completed baseline, and were randomized. Sixty adolescents (90%) completed endline assessments (31 EASE, 29 ETAU), and fifty-nine (88%) completed three-month assessments (29 EASE, 30 ETAU). Qualitatively, participants provided overall positive feedback about the intervention. Several challenges and suggestions for improvement were raised around logistics, intervention content, and acceptability of assessment measures. Implementation data highlighted challenges with intervention uptake and attendance. Outcome measures generally had strong psychometric properties (range: α = 0.77 to α = 87), however did not demonstrate change over time in either group. Conclusions The EASE intervention and study procedures are acceptable and feasible for implementation with vulnerable adolescents in Lebanon, however several improvements are necessary prior to full-scale evaluation. Trial registration #ISRCTN60799626, retrospectively registered on 04/10/2022.

Background: There is a need for scalable evidence-based psychological interventions for young adolescents experiencing high levels of psychological distress in humanitarian settings and low- and middle-income countries. Poor mental health during adolescence presents a serious public health concern as it is a known predictor of persistent mental disorders in adulthood. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a new group-based intervention developed by the World Health Organization (Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions; EASE), implemented by non-specialists, to reduce young adolescents' psychological distress among mostly Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Methods: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, individually randomized group treatment trial. Adolescents aged 10 to 14 years who screened positive for psychological distress using the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) were randomly allocated to EASE or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) (1:1.6). ETAU consisted of a single scripted psycho-education home-visit session with the adolescent and their caregivers. EASE consists of seven group sessions with adolescents and three sessions with caregivers. The primary outcome was adolescent-reported psychological distress as measured with the PSC (internalizing, externalizing, and attentional symptoms). Secondary outcomes included depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, and caregivers' parenting and distress. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, endline, and 3 months (primary time point) and 12 months follow-up. Results: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other adversities in Lebanon at the time of this research, the study was prematurely terminated, resulting in an under-powered trial sample (n = 198 enrolled compared to n = 445 targeted). We screened 604 children for eligibility. The 198 enrolled adolescents were assigned to EASE (n = 80) and ETAU (n = 118), with retention rates between 76.1 and 88.4% across all timepoints. Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated no between-group differences on any of the outcome measures between the EASE and ETAU. We did observe a significant improvement on the primary outcome equally in the EASE and ETAU groups (−0.90, 95% CI: −3.6, 1.8; p = .52), − a trend that was sustained at three months follow-up. Sub-group analyses, for those with higher depression symptoms at baseline, showed ETAU outperformed EASE on reducing depression symptoms (difference in mean change = 2.7, 95% CI: 0.1, 5.3; p = .04; d = 0.59) and internalizing problems (difference in mean change 1.0, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.9; p = .03; d = 0.56) . Conclusion: No conclusions can be drawn about the comparative effectiveness of the intervention given that the sample was underpowered as a result of early termination. Both EASE and single session psycho-education home visits resulted in meaningful improvements in reducing psychological distress. We did not identify any indications in the data suggesting that EASE was more effective than a single session family intervention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises in Lebanon. Fully powered research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of EASE.