Search

In humanitarian settings, mental health and psychosocial support services (MHPSS) are often delivered in group-based formats. Group interventions enable providers to reach more individuals when resources and technical expertise are limited. Group-based programs also foster social support, empathy, and collective problem-solving among the participants. To remedy the current lack of tools available to assess the group facilitation competencies of individuals delivering group-based MHPSS, we made it our objective to develop such a tool. Our approach, which focused on adults, complimented a similar initiative underway for children and adolescents. We reviewed MHPSS manuals to identify key group facilitation competencies, which include developing and reviewing group ground rules, facilitating participation among all group members, fostering empathy between members, encouraging collaborative problem-solving, addressing barriers to attendance, time management, and ensuring group confidentiality. We then developed the Group Facilitation Assessment of Competencies (GroupACT) Tool. The GroupACT is a structured observational tool for assessing these competencies during standardized role-plays with actor clients, or in vivo during the delivery of group sessions with actual clients. We conclude this article with guidance for using the GroupACT to assess facilitators' competencies in providing group-based MHPSS in the health, education, protection, and other sectors in humanitarian settings.

Introduction: The COVID‐19 pandemic has propelled a global paradigm shift in how psychological support is delivered. Remote delivery, through phone and video calls, is now commonplace around the world. However, most adoption of remote delivery methods is occurring without any formal training to ensure safe and effective care. Objective: The purpose of this applied qualitative study was to determine practitioners' experiences of rapidly adapting to deliver psychological support remotely during COVID‐19. Design: We used a pragmatic paradigm and applied approach to gain perspectives related to the feasibility and perceived usefulness of synchronous remote psychological support, including views on how practitioners can be prepared. Methods: Key informant interviews were conducted remotely with 27 specialist and non‐specialist practitioners in Nepal, Perú and the USA. Interviewees were identified through purposeful sampling. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Results: Respondents revealed three key themes: (i) Remote delivery of psychological support raises unique safety concerns and interference with care, (ii) Remote delivery enhances skills and expands opportunities for delivery of psychological support to new populations, and (iii) New training approaches are needed to prepare specialist and non‐specialist practitioners to deliver psychological support remotely. Conclusions: Remote psychological support is feasible and useful for practitioners, including non‐specialists, in diverse global settings. Simulated remote role plays may be a scalable method for ensuring competency in safe and effective remotely‐delivered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Task-sharing interventions have shown to be feasible and effective in reducing symptoms of psychological distress. Research is currently needed on how task-shared interventions can be sustained with less-intensive technical support from mental health providers, often available in controlled research trials. This study protocol aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Group Problem Management Plus (PM+) and the adoption, fidelity and maintenance of the intervention when delivered and supervised by nonspecialists. Methods: This study utilises a type-2 hybrid implementation design to compare participant-level outcomes when the intervention is delivered by nonspecialists who receive technical support by psychologists versus nonspecialised support by lay providers. Venezuelan and Colombian women in Barranquilla, Colombia reporting moderate levels of distress will be randomised (N=128 total) to receive PM+ delivered by nonspecialists who receive training and supervision by a: 1) psychologist; or 2) nonspecialist. Psychosocial wellbeing, general distress and functioning will be measured at baseline, 1-week and 3-months post intervention. A process evaluation will be guided by the RE-AIM framework. Discussion: Results will determine if Group PM+ is feasible and effective to implement in lower resource contexts with less-intensive specialised support. This research especially has implications for humanitarian settings with a limited number of mental health providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migrants and refugees face elevated risks for mental health problems but have limited access to services. This study compared two strategies for training and supervising nonspecialists to deliver a scalable psychological intervention, Group Problem Management Plus (gPM+), in northern Colombia. Adult women who reported elevated psychological distress and functional impairment were randomized to receive gPM+ delivered by nonspecialists who received training and supervision by: 1) a psychologist ( specialized technical support ); or 2) a nonspecialist who had been trained as a trainer/supervisor ( nonspecialized technical support ). We examined effectiveness and implementation outcomes using a mixed-methods approach. Thirteen nonspecialists were trained as gPM+ facilitators and three were trained-as-trainers. We enrolled 128 women to participate in gPM+ across the two conditions. Intervention attendance was higher in the specialized technical support condition. The nonspecialized technical support condition demonstrated higher fidelity to gPM+ and lower cost of implementation. Other indicators of effectiveness, adoption and implementation were comparable between the two implementation strategies. These results suggest it is feasible to implement mental health interventions, like gPM+, using lower-resource, community-embedded task sharing models, while maintaining safety and fidelity. Further evidence from fully powered trials is needed to make definitive conclusions about the relative cost of these implementation strategies., Competing Interests: P.V. is a staff member of the United Nations. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the United Nations. The remaining authors have no other competing interests to declare., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

A significant number of young people throughout the world are experiencing mental health concerns. Many young people will develop their first mental health concerns or will be managing their symptoms while enrolled in institutions of higher education. Although many colleges and universities are aware of the significant mental health needs among their students, the mental health and psychosocial needs of students often exceed the availability of resources and cultural and contextual barriers, such as stigma, may further impede access to care. Such gaps and barriers in mental health may lead to poor prognosis as well as negative educational and social outcomes. We propose that non-specialist delivered mental health and psychosocial interventions may play a critical role in reducing the gaps in care for students in higher education. In particular, non-specialist delivered care can complement existing specialized services to provide stepped models of care. Importantly, the adaptation and implementation of non-specialist delivered mental health and psychosocial support interventions in higher education may lead to innovative strategies for increasing access to care in this context, but may lead to adaptations that could apply to contexts outside of higher education as well., (© The Author(s) 2023.)