Search

The current study evaluated the Kiswahili version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in a Kenyan context comprising of women exposed to gender-based violence. Participants were randomly drawn from community sampling using household screening methods in peri-urban areas in Nairobi. A total of 1,394 participants with varying levels of literacy (years of education: mean [M] = 9.42; standard deviation [SD] = 3.73) and aged between 18 and 89 years were recruited for the study. The observed factor structure of the GHQ-12 was evaluated using six most tested models querying the dimensionality of the instrument insofar as the impacts of positive and negative wording effects in driving multidimensionality. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis supported a bifactor model, consisting of a general distress factor and two separate factors representing common variance due to the positive and negative wording of items. Overall, the findings support the use of the Kiswahili version of the GHQ-12 as a unidimensional construct with method-specific variance owing to wording effects. Importantly, GHQ-12 responses from a sample of Kenyan women with relatively low levels of literacy are congruent with the factor structure observed in other cross-cultural settings in low- and-middle-income countries.

Background: Reliving distressing memories is a core component of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and prolonged grief disorder (PGD). There is little understanding of how reliving these memories functions in the treatment of these disorders. Objective: This study investigated whether reliving functions comparably in the treatment of PTSD and PGD, and whether it is comparably related to treatment outcome. Method: This study conducted a reanalysis of patients with either PTSD (n = 55) or PGD (n = 45) who underwent treatments that comprised at least four sessions of reliving memories of either their traumatic experience or the loss of the deceased person. Results: PTSD participants displayed greater habituation of distress across sessions during reliving than PGD participants. Between-session reduction in distress during reliving was associated with symptom remission in PTSD, but this pattern was not observed in PGD. Conclusion: This pattern of findings indicates that although reliving appears to be a useful strategy for treating both PTSD and PGD, this strategy does not function comparably in the two conditions and may involve distinct mechanisms.

Background The social restrictions occurring during the pandemic contributed to loss of many sources of reward, which contributes to poor mental health.Objective This trial evaluated a brief positive affect training programme to reduce anxiety, depression and suicidality during the pandemic.Methods In this single-blind, parallel, randomised controlled trial, adults who screened positive for COVID-19-related psychological distress across Australia were randomly allocated to either a 6-session group-based programme based on positive affect training (n=87) or enhanced usual care (EUC, n=87). Primary outcome was total score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—anxiety and depression subscales assessed at baseline, 1-week post-treatment, 3 months (primary outcome time point) as well as secondary outcome measures of suicidality, generalised anxiety disorder, sleep impairment, positive and negative mood and COVID-19-related stress.Findings Between 20 September 2020 and 16 September 2021, 174 participants were enrolled into the trial. Relative to EUC, at 3-month follow-up the intervention led to greater reduction on depression (mean difference 1.2 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.9)), p=0.003), with a moderate effect size (0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.9)). There were also greater reduction of suicidality and improvement in quality of life. There were no differences in anxiety, generalised anxiety, anhedonia, sleep impairment, positive or negative mood or COVID-19 concerns.Conclusions This intervention was able to reduce depression and suicidality during adverse experiences when rewarding events were diminished, such as pandemics.Clinical implications Strategies to improve positive affect may be useful to reduce mental health issues.Trial registration number ACTRN12620000811909.

Abstract Background The mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have been profound. This paper outlines the study protocol for a trial that tests the efficacy of a brief group-based psychological intervention (Coping with COVID; CWC), relative to Supportive Counselling, to reduce distress associated with COVID-19 in a young adult population in Bangalore, India. Methods A single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial will be carried out via video conferencing in a small group format. Following informed consent, adults that screen positive for levels of psychological distress (Kessler 10 (K-10 score ≥ 20) and have access to a videoconferencing platform will be randomised to an adapted version of CWC (n = 90) or Supportive Counselling (SC) (n = 90). The primary outcome will be reduction in psychological distress including anxiety and depression at 2-months post treatment. Secondary outcomes include worry, positive wellbeing, and stress in relation to COVID-19. Discussion This treatment trial will assess whether CWC will result in reduced distress relative to Supportive Counselling in a young adult population in Bangalore, India. This study will yield important insights into the role of nonspecific factors versus the intervention’s components in impacting COVID-19 related distress. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001064897). Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been obtained from the participating institution, CHRIST University in Bangalore. Results of the trial will be submitted for publication in peer reviewed journals and findings presented at scientific conferences and to key service providers and policy makers.

Abstract Background Globally COVID-19 has had a profound impact on the psychological wellbeing of millions of people, and there is an urgent imperative to address elevated levels of distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed Problem Management Plus (PM+), a low intensity psychological intervention for adults experiencing psychological distress. This paper outlines the study protocol for a trial that tests the effectiveness of an adapted version of PM+ to reduce distress associated with COVID-19. Methods A single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial will be carried out for distressed people across Australia. via video conferencing on a small group basis. Following informed consent, adults that screen positive for levels of psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12 score ≥ 3) and have access to videoconferencing platform will be randomised to an adapted version of gPM+ (n = 120) or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) (n = 120). The primary outcome will be reduction in psychological distress including anxiety and depression at 2-months post treatment. Secondary outcomes include worry, sleep problems, anhedonia, social support, and stress in relation to COVID-19. Discussion The trial aims assess whether an adapted version of videoconferencing PM+ that is specifically designed to target COVI-19 related distress will result in reduced distress relative to enhanced usual care. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered on the ANZCTR on 14/4/20 ( ACTRN12620000468921 ).

Abstract Background In many low resource settings, the provision of government mental health care services is limited to specialized psychiatry units in urban hospital care facilities, where the most common treatment for common mental disorders (CMDs) is pharmacotherapy, occasionally with adjunct nonspecific psychological support. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of adding a low intensity, psychological intervention, Problem Management Plus (PM+) for CMDs into routine care in a specialized mental health care facility in Pakistan. Methods A two arm, single-blind individual randomized controlled trial (RCT) was carried out with adults (N = 192), referred for psychological support by psychiatrists. The study participants were randomized (1:1) to PM + plus Treatment as Usual (TAU) (n = 96) or TAU only (n = 96). The primary outcomes were symptoms of anxiety and depression, measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and functional impairment as measured by WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) at 20 weeks after baseline. Results The analysis was done on intention-to-treat principle. The linear mixed model analysis showed that at 20 weeks after baseline, there was a significant reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression (mean [SD], 16.23 [8.81] vs 19.79 [7.77]; AMD, − 3.10; 95% CI, − 0.26 to − 5.76); p = 0.03 and improvement in functioning (mean [SD], 22.94 [9.37] vs 27.37 [8.36]; AMD, − 4.35; 95% CI, − 1.45 to − 7.24); p = 0.004 in PM + plus TAU versus TAU arm. The follow-up rate was 67% at primary end-point. Conclusions Specialized care facilities in LMICs may consider adding brief, evidence-based psychological treatments for CMDs to their routine care. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000381482. Registered March 23, 2016. Retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Default.aspx/ ACTRN12616000381482

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 size, −0.03). Relative to EUC, participants in gPM+ had greater reductions in severity of personally identified problems (mean difference 0.88, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.69; p = .03), and inconsistent disciplinary parenting (mean difference 1.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.05; p < .001). There were no significant differences between conditions for changes in PTSD, disability, grief, prodromal symptoms, or childhood mental health outcomes. Mediation analysis indicated the change in inconsistent disciplinary parenting was associated with reduced attentional (β = 0.11, SE .07; 95% CI .003 to .274) and internalizing (β = 0.08, SE .05; 95% CI .003 to 0.19) problems in children. No adverse events were attributable to the interventions or the trial. Major limitations included only one-quarter of participants being male, and measures of personally identified problems, grief, prodromal psychotic symptoms, inconsistent parenting behavior, and children’s mental health have not been validated with Syrians. Conclusions In camp-based Syrian refugees, a brief group behavioral intervention led to reduced depressive symptoms, personally identified problems, and disciplinary parenting compared to usual care, and this may have indirect benefits for refugees’ children. The limited capacity of the intervention to reduce PTSD, disability, or children’s psychological problems points to the need for development of more effective treatments for refugees in camp settings. Trial registration Prospectively registered at Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12619001386123. Richard A. Bryant and colleagues evaluate effects of a lay provider-delivered intervention on adult Syrian refugees’ mental health, parenting behavior, and their children’s mental health. Author summary Why was this study done? There are approximately 80 million refugees and forcibly displaced people today, and they are at greater risk for common mental disorders. Most countries hosting refugees lack the health resources to address these mental health problems. In response to this situation, the World Health Organization has developed a brief psychological intervention that can be delivered by trained lay workers that aims to reduce psychological distress following adversity. To our knowledge, this study was the first to test the effectiveness of the Group Problem Management Plus (gPM+) program in distressed refugees in a refugee camp. What did the researchers do and find? This study screened adult Syrian refugees in a camp in in Jordan, and subsequently randomized 410 adult refugees who displayed distress and impaired functioning to either 5 individual sessions of gPM+ or enhanced usual care (EUC). Independent assessments indicated that 3 months following treatment, refugees who received gPM+ reported significantly less depression but not anxiety, with a moderate effect relative to EUC. gPM+ also led to greater reductions inconsistent disciplinary parenting, and this was associated with greater reductions in attentional and internalizing problems in refugees’ children. What do these findings mean? This study suggests that mental health nonspecialists can be briefly trained in gPM+, and they can deliver this intervention in a way that it can improve mental health of refugees. This brief intervention has the potential to scale up mental health services for refugees in settings that lack adequate health resources, and this may have downstream benefits for refugees’ children.

Abstract Background Because of the high burden of untreated mental illness in humanitarian settings and low- and middle-income countries, scaling-up effective psychological interventions require a cultural adaptation process that is feasible and acceptable. Our adaptation process incorporates changes into both content and implementation strategies, with a focus on local understandings of distress and treatment mechanisms of action. Methods Building upon the ecological validity model, we developed a 10-step process, the mental health Cultural Adaptation and Contextualization for Implementation (mhCACI) procedure, and piloted this approach in Nepal for Group Problem Management Plus (PM+), a task-sharing intervention, proven effective for adults with psychological distress in low-resource settings. Detailed documentation tools were used to ensure rigor and transparency during the adaptation process. Findings The mhCACI is a 10-step process: (1) identify mechanisms of action, (2) conduct a literature desk review for the culture and context, (3) conduct a training-of-trainers, (4) translate intervention materials, (5) conduct an expert read-through of the materials, (6) qualitative assessment of intervention population and site, (7) conduct practice rounds, (8) conduct an adaptation workshop with experts and implementers, (9) pilot test the training, supervision, and implementation, and (10) review through process evaluation. For Group PM+, key adaptations were harmonizing the mechanisms of action with cultural models of ‘tension’; modification of recruitment procedures to assure fit; and development of a skills checklist. Conclusion A 10-step mhCACI process could feasibly be implemented in a humanitarian setting to rapidly prepare a psychological intervention for widespread implementation.

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 safe and culturally acceptable. The results support the readiness for a definitive RCT to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention in camp settings.

Abstract Background The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed Problem Management Plus (PM+), a 5-session, psychological intervention program delivered by trained non-specialist that addresses common mental disorders. The objectives of this study are to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PM+ in a specialized mental health care facility in Pakistan. Methods A single blind individual randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be carried out in the outpatient department of a specialized mental healthcare facility in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. After informed consent, patients with high psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 (score >2) and functional impairment (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 score >16) will be randomised to PM+ plus treatment as usual (n = 96) or TAU only (n = 96). The primary outcome is the psychological distress, measured by levels of anxiety and depression on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and improvement in functioning as measured by WHODAS at 20 weeks after baseline. Secondary outcomes include improvement in symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, levels of social support and cost effectiveness evaluation. Qualitative interviews will be conducted to evaluate the process of implementing PM+ including barriers and facilitators in implementation and possibility of integration of PM+ program in specialized mental health care facilities in Pakistan. Discussion The results of this study will be helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the approach of training non specialists, based in the specialized mental health care facilities in delivering evidence based psychological interventions in the low resource settings. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000381482. Registered Retrospectively on March 23, 2016

Abstract Background The impact of humanitarian disasters upon mental health is well recognised. The evidence for psychological interventions for mental health is mounting, but few interventions have been rigorously tested in humanitarian settings. To be sustainable in humanitarian settings interventions need to be short, simple, deliverable by nonspecialists under supervision, and adopt a transdiagnostic approach where an array of mental health outcomes are addressed simultaneously. These elements have been incorporated into the newly developed WHO Problem Management Plus (PM+) Group intervention. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the locally adapted PM+ Group intervention for women in Swat, Pakistan. Methods This PM+ Group trial is a two-arm, single-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community-based setting with women in rural Pakistan. PM+ is delivered in partnership with the Lady Health Worker (LHW) Programme which provides community-based health care to women in Pakistan. Thirty-four LHW clusters will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation ratio using a permuted-block randomisation method. Participants screened and found to meet the inclusion criteria will be allocated to either the PM+ intervention group (n = 306), or the control arm (n = 306). The manualised PM+ intervention involves five sessions, each lasting 3 h, and introduces four strategies applied by participants to problems that they are facing. It is delivered by local female facilitators with a minimum of 16 years of education who are provided with targeted training and supervision. The primary outcome is individual psychological distress, measured by levels of anxiety and depression on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 20 weeks after baseline. Secondary outcomes include major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, levels of social support, levels of functioning, and economic effectiveness. Intervention acceptability will be explored through an embedded qualitative study. Discussion The PM+ Group trial will provide important evidence on the effectiveness of an empirically supported psychological treatment delivered by nonspecialists in a humanitarian setting. If proven effective, the qualitative component will inform strategies for PM+ Group scale-up in health systems in other humanitarian settings. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, identifier: ACTRN12616000037404. Registered on 19 January 2016; WHO Protocol ID RPC705, v.4, 2 November 2015.

Following publication of the original article [1], the first author reported an error in referring his paper.

In the original version of this article [1], the reference 35 was published incorrectly. The corrected reference is given below: