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]

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, [...]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, the lack of availability of psychological services for people exposed to adversities has led to the development of a range of scalable psychological interventions with features that enable better scale-up. Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a brief intervention of five sessions that can be delivered by non-specialists. It is designed for people in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) affected by any kind of adversity. Two recent randomized controlled trials in Pakistan and Kenya demonstrated the effectiveness of individually delivered PM+. A group version of PM+ has been developed to make the intervention more scalable and acceptable. This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (c-RCT) on locally adapted Group PM+ in Nepal.Methods/design: This c-RCT will compare Group PM+ to enhanced usual care (EUC) in participants with high levels of psychological distress recruited from the community. The study is designed as a two-arm, single-blind c-RCT that will be conducted in a community-based setting in Morang, a flood affected district in Eastern Nepal. Randomization will occur at ward level, the smallest administrative level in Nepal, with 72 enrolled wards allocated to Group PM+ or to EUC (ratio 1:1). Group PM+ consists of five approximately 2.5-h sessions, in which participants are taught techniques to manage their stressors and problems, and is delivered by trained and supervised community psychosocial workers (CPSWs). EUC consists of a family meeting with (a) basic information on adversity and mental health, (b) benefits of getting support, (c) information on seeking services from local health facilities with mhGAP-trained staff. The primary outcome measure is levels of individual psychological distress at endline (equivalent to 20 ± 1 weeks after baseline), measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcome measures include levels of functioning, depressive symptoms, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, levels of social support, somatic symptoms, and ways of coping. We hypothesize that skills acquired will mediate any impact of the intervention.Discussion: This c-RCT will contribute to the growing evidence-base for transdiagnostic psychological interventions delivered by non-specialists for people in communities affected by adversity. If Group PM+ is proven effective, the intervention manual will be released for use, giving the opportunity for further adaptation and implementation of the intervention in diverse settings with communities that require better access to psychological interventions.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03747055. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]