Search

© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data., Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected people's engagement in health behaviors, especially those that protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 transmission, such as handwashing/sanitizing. This study investigated whether adherence to the World Health Organization's (WHO) handwashing guidelines (the outcome variable) was associated with the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic, as measured by the following 6 indicators: (i) the number of new cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a country-level mean calculated for the 14 days prior to data collection), (ii) total cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality accumulated since the onset of the pandemic, and (iii) changes in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a difference between country-level COVID-19 morbidity/mortality in the previous 14 days compared to cases recorded 14-28 days earlier). Methods: The observational study (#NCT04367337) enrolled 6064 adults residing in Australia, Canada, China, France, Gambia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland. Data on handwashing adherence across 8 situations (indicated in the WHO guidelines) were collected via an online survey (March-July 2020). Individual-level handwashing data were matched with the date- and country-specific values of the 6 indices of the trajectory of COVID-19 pandemic, obtained from the WHO daily reports. Results: Multilevel regression models indicated a negative association between both accumulation of the total cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = -.041, SE = .013, p = .013) and mortality (B = -.036, SE = .014 p = .002) and handwashing. Higher levels of total COVID-related morbidity and mortality were related to lower handwashing adherence. However, increases in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = .014, SE = .007, p = .035) and mortality (B = .022, SE = .009, p = .015) were associated with higher levels of handwashing adherence. Analyses controlled for participants' COVID-19-related situation (their exposure to information about handwashing, being a healthcare professional), sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status), and country-level variables (strictness of containment and health policies, human development index). The models explained 14-20% of the variance in handwashing adherence. Conclusions: To better explain levels of protective behaviors such as handwashing, future research should account for indicators of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic., The study was supported by grant number 2020/01/0/HS6/00059 from the National Science Centre, Poland.

Background This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare 6-week posttreatment outcomes of an Integrative Adapt Therapy (IAT) to a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) on common mental health symptoms and adaptive capacity amongst refugees from Myanmar. IAT is grounded on psychotherapeutic elements specific to the refugee experience. Methods and findings We conducted a single-blind RCT (October 2017 –May 2019) with Chin (39.3%), Kachin (15.7%), and Rohingya (45%) refugees living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The trial included 170 participants receiving six 45-minute weekly sessions of IAT (97.6% retention, 4 lost to follow-up) and 161 receiving a multicomponent CBT also involving six 45-minute weekly sessions (96.8% retention, 5 lost to follow-up). Participants (mean age: 30.8 years, SD = 9.6) had experienced and/or witnessed an average 10.1 types (SD = 5.9, range = 1–27) of traumatic events. We applied a single-blind design in which independent assessors of pre- and posttreatment indices were masked in relation to participants’ treatment allocation status. Primary outcomes were symptom scores of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD (CPTSD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the 5 scales of the Adaptive Stress Index (ASI), and a measure of resilience (the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale [CDRS]). Compared to CBT, an intention-to-treat analysis (n = 331) at 6-week posttreatment follow-up demonstrated greater reductions in the IAT arm for all common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms and ASI domains except for ASI-3 (injustice), as well as increases in the resilience scores. Adjusted average treatment effects assessing the differences in posttreatment scores between IAT and CBT (with baseline scores as covariates) were −0.08 (95% CI: −0.14 to −0.02, p = 0.012) for PTSD, −0.07 (95% CI: −0.14 to −0.01) for CPTSD, −0.07 for MDD (95% CI: −0.13 to −0.01, p = 0.025), 0.16 for CDRS (95% CI: 0.06–0.026, p ≤ 0.001), −0.12 (95% CI: −0.20 to −0.03, p ≤ 0.001) for ASI-1 (safety/security), −0.10 for ASI-2 (traumatic losses; 95% CI: −0.18 to −0.02, p = 0.02), −0.03 for ASI-3 (injustice; (95% CI: −0.11 to 0.06, p = 0.513), −0.12 for ASI-4 (role/identity disruptions; 95% CI: −0.21 to −0.04, p ≤ 0.001), and −0.18 for ASI-5 (existential meaning; 95% CI: −0.19 to −0.05, p ≤ 0.001). Compared to CBT, the IAT group had larger effect sizes for all indices (except for resilience) including PTSD (IAT, d = 0.93 versus CBT, d = 0.87), CPTSD (d = 1.27 versus d = 1.02), MDD (d = 1.4 versus d = 1.11), ASI-1 (d = 1.1 versus d = 0.85), ASI-2 (d = 0.81 versus d = 0.66), ASI-3 (d = 0.49 versus d = 0.42), ASI-4 (d = 0.86 versus d = 0.67), and ASI-5 (d = 0.72 versus d = 0.53). No adverse events were recorded for either therapy. Limitations include a possible allegiance effect (the authors inadvertently conveying disproportionate enthusiasm for IAT in training and supervision), cross-over effects (counsellors applying elements of one therapy in delivering the other), and the brief period of follow-up. Conclusions Compared to CBT, IAT showed superiority in improving mental health symptoms and adaptative stress from baseline to 6-week posttreatment. The differences in scores between IAT and CBT were modest and future studies conducted by independent research teams need to confirm the findings. Trial registration The study is registered under Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (http://www.anzctr.org.au/). The trial registration number is: ACTRN12617001452381, Author summary Why was this study done? Integrative Adapt Therapy (IAT) is a theoretically guided approach based on the Adaptation and Development After Persecution and Trauma (ADAPT) model, specific to the refugee experience. The 5 pillars identified in the ADAPT model—(1) safety/security, (2) attachments, (3) justice, (4) role/identity disruptions, (5) existential meaning—may have universal resonance with refugees and displaced persons. This is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which IAT is compared with a brief, culturally adapted 6 weekly 45-minute Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). What did the researchers do and find? Chin, Kachin, and Rohingya persons displaced to Malaysia were randomly assigned by an independent researcher to either the IAT or CBT control arm of the trial. Lay counsellors who received training in both IAT and CBT treated the participants according to their allocation status. Compared to CBT, IAT participants reported greater reductions in mental health symptoms, in all 5 adaptive stress areas (except the injustice domain), and a greater increase in resilience. What do the results mean? The findings suggest that IAT, delivered by lay counsellors, was an effective treatment for improving mental health, adaptive stress, and resilience amongst refugees. The difference in treatment effect between the 2 treatments on resilience is small. We note that our findings are limited to only 6-week follow-up and may not be generalisable to refugees in other settings.

A main gap in the delivery of mental health and psychosocial (MHPSS) services to Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar district in Bangladesh is the limited coverage of psychotherapeutic interventions. There is a shortage of mental health professionals who can provide culturally adapted and linguistically appropriate psychotherapeutic interventions that are congruent with the refugee experience. This article describes preliminary work on training Bangladeshi psychologists and para-professionals in applying a novel group-based psychological intervention for refugees, Group Integrative Adapt Therapy (IAT-G). This is a pragmatic, eclectic and transdiagnostic approach, based on the Adaptation and Development After Persecution and Trauma (ADAPT) model. It aims to help refugees to develop resilience and capacities for managing maladaptive reactions to trauma and post-migration living difficulties. This paper describes the key strategies and challenges during the first phase of the project. Activities included an extensive desk review, a one-week training workshop with competency assessments, cultural adaptation of the treatment manual and assessment measures, training on digital literacy and electronic data collection and a blended supervisory model (involving onsite and online sessions). It proved to be generally feasible but not easy to introduce IAT-G in this population. Key implications for practice The introduction of a brief scalable psychological intervention within an acute and ongoing emergency was feasible, but faced considerable challenges including high staff turnover. Implementation involves multiple components including stakeholder engagement, contextual adaptation of tools and materials, training and supervision and setting up a monitoring system. Setting up a supervision is of critical importance but can be complicated in the context of an unfolding emergency.

Contemporary scalable psychological interventions utilise task-shifting approaches that enable non-specialists such as social workers, nurses and lay persons to deliver structured interventions after a brief training and ongoing supervision by professionals. This field report describes a training-implementation approach we used to train lay counsellors to implement a psychological intervention, Integrative Adapt Therapy (IAT), with Rohingya Refugees in Malaysia. IAT is a theoretically guided programme based on the Adaptation and Development After Persecution and Trauma (ADAPT) model. Unlike existing cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT)-based interventions, IAT helps refugees trace their emotional and behavioural problems to the underlying psychosocial disruptions (reflected in the core ADAPT ‘Pillars’) they experience. We assessed implementation outcomes by conducting a focus group with the twelve lay IAT counsellors who completed a training workshop followed by six-month supervised implementation of the IAT programme with Rohingya refugees. The implementation outcomes focused on the value and benefits of the programme to the counsellors’ clients and broader community, implementation challenges, cultural acceptability, and recommendations for improvement in training. There was a strong agreement amongst the counsellors that both the clients and they themselves benefited from the programme. Furthermore, the general consensus was that the clients reported improvements in their relationships with people (ADAPT Pillar 2: Bonds and Networks), in having a more realistic view about their Roles and Identities (Pillar 4) and in gaining a sense of purpose and meaning in life (Pillar 5: Existential Meaning). In addition, the focus group agreed that the programme fitted well with the culture and values of the Rohingya people. Implementation challenges include ensuring that the intervention team reflects gender balance, that the programme is sustainable and refining strategies to facilitate programme attendance and adherence.