Search

BackgroundThe lack of availability of evidence-based services for people exposed to adversity globally has led to the development of psychological interventions with features that will likely make them more scalable. The evidence for the efficacy of e-mental health from high-income countries is compelling, and the use of these interventions could be a way to increase the coverage of evidence-based psychological interventions in low- and middle-income countries. Step-by-Step is a brief (5-session) intervention proposed by the World Health Organization as an innovative approach to reducing the suffering and disability associated with depression. ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a locally adapted version of Step-by-Step with Syrian nationals (trial 1) and Lebanese nationals and other populations residing in Lebanon (trial 2). MethodsThis Step-by-Step trial involves 2 parallel, two-armed, randomized controlled trials comparing the e-intervention Step-by-Step to enhanced care as usual in participants with depressive symptoms and impaired functioning. The randomized controlled trials are designed and powered to detect effectiveness in 2 populations: Syrians in Lebanon (n=568) and other people residing in Lebanon (n=568; Lebanese nationals and other populations resident in Lebanon). The primary outcomes are depressive symptomatology (measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and functioning (measured with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0). Secondary outcomes include anxiety symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, personalized measures of psychosocial problems, subjective well-being, and economic effectiveness. Participants are mainly recruited through online advertising. Additional outreach methods will be used if required, for example through dissemination of information through partner agencies and organizations. They can access the intervention on a computer, tablet, and mobile phone through a hybrid app. Step-by-Step has 5 sessions, and users are guided by trained nonspecialist “e-helpers” providing phone-based or message-based support for around 15 minutes a week. ResultsThe trials were funded in 2018. The study protocol was last verified June 20, 2019 (WHO ERC.0002797) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03720769). The trials started recruitment as of December 9, 2019, and all data collection was completed in December 2020. ConclusionsThe Step-by-Step trials will provide evidence about the effectiveness of an e-mental health intervention in Lebanon. If the intervention proves to be effective, this will inform future scale-up of this and similar interventions in Lebanon and in other settings across the world. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720769; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03720769 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/21585

Background There remains uncertainty about the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health. This umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the association between the pandemic and common mental disorders. We qualitatively summarized evidence from reviews with meta-analyses of individual study-data in the general population, healthcare workers, and specific at-risk populations. Methods and findings A systematic search was carried out in 5 databases for peer-reviewed systematic reviews with meta-analyses of prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms during the pandemic published between December 31, 2019 until August 12, 2022. We identified 123 reviews of which 7 provided standardized mean differences (SMDs) either from longitudinal pre- to during pandemic study-data or from cross-sectional study-data compared to matched pre-pandemic data. Methodological quality rated with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist scores (AMSTAR 2) instrument was generally low to moderate. Small but significant increases of depression, anxiety, and/or general mental health symptoms were reported in the general population, in people with preexisting physical health conditions, and in children (3 reviews; SMDs ranged from 0.11 to 0.28). Mental health and depression symptoms significantly increased during periods of social restrictions (1 review; SMDs of 0.41 and 0.83, respectively) but anxiety symptoms did not (SMD: 0.26). Increases of depression symptoms were generally larger and longer-lasting during the pandemic (3 reviews; SMDs depression ranged from 0.16 to 0.23) than those of anxiety (2 reviews: SMDs 0.12 and 0.18). Females showed a significantly larger increase in anxiety symptoms than males (1 review: SMD 0.15). In healthcare workers, people with preexisting mental disorders, any patient group, children and adolescents, and in students, no significant differences from pre- to during pandemic were found (2 reviews; SMD's ranging from -0.16 to 0.48). In 116 reviews pooled cross-sectional prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms ranged from 9% to 48% across populations. Although heterogeneity between studies was high and largely unexplained, assessment tools and cut-offs used, age, sex or gender, and COVID-19 exposure factors were found to be moderators in some reviews. The major limitations are the inability to quantify and explain the high heterogeneity across reviews included and the shortage of within-person data from multiple longitudinal studies. Conclusions A small but consistent deterioration of mental health and particularly depression during early pandemic and during social restrictions has been found in the general population and in people with chronic somatic disorders. Also, associations between mental health and the pandemic were stronger in females and younger age groups than in others. Explanatory individual-level, COVID-19 exposure, and time-course factors were scarce and showed inconsistencies across reviews. For policy and research, repeated assessments of mental health in population panels including vulnerable individuals are recommended to respond to current and future health crises., Author(s): Anke B. Witteveen 1,*, Susanne Y. Young 1,2, Pim Cuijpers 1, José Luis Ayuso-Mateos 3,4, Corrado Barbui 5, Federico Bertolini 5, Maria Cabello 3,4, Camilla Cadorin 5, Naomi Downes [...]

Author(s): Pim Cuijpers, Eva Heim, Jinane Abi Ramia, Sebastian Burchert, Kenneth Carswell, Ilja Cornelisz, Christine Knaevelsrud, Philip Noun, Chris van Klaveren, Edith van't Hof, Edwina Zoghbi, Mark van Ommeren, Rabih [...]

Background Millions of young adolescents in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) affected by humanitarian crises experience elevated rates of poor mental health. There is a need for scalable programs that can improve the mental health of young adolescents. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a nonspecialist delivered group-based intervention (Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions (EASE)) to improve young adolescents' mental health. Methods and findings In this single-blind, parallel, controlled trial, Syrian refugees aged 10 to 14 years in Jordan were identified through screening of psychological distress as defined by scores [greater than or equal to]15 on the Paediatric Symptom Scale. Participants were randomised to either EASE or enhanced usual care (EUC) involving referral to local psychosocial services (on a 1:1.6 ratio). Participants were aware of treatment allocation but assessors were blinded. Primary outcomes were scores on the Paediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC; internalising, externalising, and attentional difficulty scales) assessed at week 0, 9 weeks, and 3 months after treatment (primary outcome time point). It was hypothesised that EASE would result in greater reductions on internalising symptoms than EUC. Secondary outcomes were depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, school belongingness, and caregivers' parenting and mental health. Between June 2019 and January 2020, 1,842 young adolescent refugees were screened for eligibility on the basis of psychological distress. There were 520 adolescents (28.2%) who screened positive, of whom 471 (90.6%) agreed to enter the trial. Overall, 185 were assigned to EASE and 286 to EUC, and 169 and 254 were retained at 3 months for EASE and EUC, respectively. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that at 3 months, EASE resulted in greater reduction on the PSC-internalising scale than EUC (estimated mean difference 0.69, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.19; p = 0.007; effect size, 0.38) but there were no differences for PSC-externalising (estimated mean difference 0.24, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.91; p = 0.49; effect size, -0.10), PSC-attentional problem (estimated mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.54; p = 0.97; effect size, -0.01) scores, or on depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, or school belongingness. Relative to EUC, caregivers in EASE had less psychological distress (estimated mean difference 1.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.19; p = 0.002) and inconsistent disciplinary parenting (mean difference 1.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.05; p < 0.001). Secondary analyses that (a) focused on adolescents with probable internalising disorders; (b) completed the 3-month assessment; and (c) controlled for trauma exposure did not alter the primary results. Mediation analysis indicated that for caregivers in the EASE condition, reduction in inconsistent disciplinary parenting was associated with reduced attentional ([beta] = 0.11, SE 0.07; 95% CI 0.003, 0.274) and internalising ([beta] = 0.11, SE 0.07; 95% CI 0.003, 0.274) problems in their children. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. A limitation was that EUC was not matched to EASE in terms of facilitator attention or group involvement. Conclusions EASE led to reduced internalising problems in young refugee adolescents and was associated with reduced distress and less inconsistent disciplinary parenting in caregivers. This intervention has the potential as a scalable intervention to mitigate young adolescents' emotional difficulties in LMIC. Trial registration Prospectively registered at Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12619000341123., Author(s): Richard A. Bryant 1,2,*, Aiysha Malik 3, Ibrahim Said Aqel 4, Maha Ghatasheh 4, Rand Habashneh 4, Katie S. Dawson 1, Sarah Watts 3, Mark J. D. Jordans 5,6, [...]

Background Globally, 235 million people are impacted by humanitarian emergencies worldwide, presenting increased risk of experiencing a mental disorder. Our objective was to test the effectiveness of a brief group psychological treatment delivered by trained facilitators without prior professional mental health training in a disaster-prone setting. Methods and findings We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) from November 25, 2018 through September 30, 2019. Participants in both arms were assessed at baseline, midline (7 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 1 week after treatment in the experimental arm), and endline (20 weeks post-baseline, which was approximately 3 months posttreatment). The intervention was Group Problem Management Plus (PM+), a psychological treatment of 5 weekly sessions, which was compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) consisting of a family psychoeducation meeting with a referral option to primary care providers trained in mental healthcare. The setting was 72 wards (geographic unit of clustering) in eastern Nepal, with 1 PM+ group per ward in the treatment arm. Wards were eligible if they were in disaster-prone regions and residents spoke Nepali. Wards were assigned to study arms based on covariate constrained randomization. Eligible participants were adult women and men 18 years of age and older who met screening criteria for psychological distress and functional impairment. Outcomes were measured at the participant level, with assessors blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was psychological distress assessed with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcomes included depression symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, 'heart-mind' problems, social support, somatic symptoms, and functional impairment. The hypothesized mediator was skill use aligned with the treatment's mechanisms of action. A total of 324 participants were enrolled in the control arm (36 wards) and 319 in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). The overall sample (N = 611) had a median age of 45 years (range 18-91 years), 82% of participants were female, 50% had recently experienced a natural disaster, and 31% had a chronic physical illness. Endline assessments were completed by 302 participants in the control arm (36 wards) and 303 participants in the Group PM+ arm (36 wards). At the midline assessment (immediately after Group PM+ in the experimental arm), mean GHQ-12 total score was 2.7 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 1.7, 3.7, p < 0.001), with standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.4 (95% CI: -0.5, -0.2). At 3 months posttreatment (primary endpoint), mean GHQ-12 total score was 1.4 units lower in Group PM+ compared to control (95% CI: 0.3, 2.5, p = 0.014), with SMD of -0.2 (95% CI: -0.4, 0.0). Among the secondary outcomes, Group PM+ was associated with endline with a larger proportion attaining more than 50% reduction in depression symptoms (29.9% of Group PM+ arm versus 17.3% of control arm, risk ratio = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.4, p = 0.002). Fewer participants in the Group PM+ arm continued to have 'heart-mind' problems at endline (58.8%) compared to the control arm (69.4%), risk ratio = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7, 1.0, p = 0.042). Group PM+ was not associated with lower PTSD symptoms or functional impairment. Use of psychosocial skills at midline was estimated to explain 31% of the PM+ effect on endline GHQ-12 scores. Adverse events in the control arm included 1 suicide death and 1 reportable incidence of domestic violence; in the Group PM+ arm, there was 1 death due to physical illness. Study limitations include lack of power to evaluate gender-specific effects, lack of long-term outcomes (e.g., 12 months posttreatment), and lack of cost-effectiveness information. Conclusions In this study, we found that a 5-session group psychological treatment delivered by nonspecialists modestly reduced psychological distress and depression symptoms in a setting prone to humanitarian emergencies. Benefits were partly explained by the degree of psychosocial skill use in daily life. To improve the treatment benefit, future implementation should focus on approaches to enhance skill use by PM+ participants. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03747055., Author(s): Mark J. D. Jordans 1,2, Brandon A. Kohrt 2,3,*, Manaswi Sangraula 2, Elizabeth L. Turner 4, Xueqi Wang 4, Pragya Shrestha 2, Renasha Ghimire 2, Edith van't Hof 5, [...]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, along with other global threats such as socioeconomic inequalities, conflict and climate change, has increased the need to address mental health. (1) Interest in [...]