Search

Introduction Evidence-based and scalable prevention and promotion focused mental health and psychosocial support interventions are needed for conflict-affected populations in humanitarian settings. This study retrospectively assessed whether participation in Self Help Plus (SH+) versus enhanced usual care (EUC) resulted in reduced incidence of probable mental disorder and increased positive mental health and well-being post-intervention among South Sudanese refugee women in Uganda.Methods This study used secondary data from treatment-oriented pilot (n=50) and fully-powered cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCT)s (n=694) of SH+ versus EUC. Data from baseline and post-intervention assessments were combined. A composite latent indicator for mental health problems was generated using mental health and well-being measures included in both cRCTs. In order to assess incidence, a binary variable approximating probable mental disorder was created to exclude those with probable mental disorder from the analysis sample and as the primary prevention outcome. The promotive effects of SH+ relative to EUC were examined in the same sample by assessing subjective well-being and psychological flexibility scale scores.Results A single factor for mental health problems was identified with all factor loadings >0.30 and acceptable internal consistency (α=0.70). We excluded 161 women who met criteria for probable mental disorder at baseline. Among those with at least moderate psychological distress but without probable mental disorder at baseline and with follow-up data (n=538), the incidence of probable mental disorder at post-intervention was lower among those who participated in SH+ relative to EUC (Risk ratio =0.16, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53). Participation in SH+ versus EUC was also associated with increased subjective well-being (β=2.62, 95% CI: 1.63 to 3.60) and psychological flexibility (β=4.55, 95% CI: 2.92 to 6.18) at post-intervention assessment.Conclusions These results support the use and further testing of SH+ as a selective and indicated prevention and promotion focused psychosocial intervention in humanitarian settings.Trial registration number ISRCTN50148022.

Introduction The World Health Organization’s (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ and its group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ and SbS with Syrian refugees.Methods and analysis Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list.Ethics and dissemination Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.