Lay-therapist-delivered, low-intensity, psychosocial intervention for refugees and asylum seekers (PROSPER): protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Asylum seekers and refugees (AS&Rs) experience impaired mental health and wellbeing, related to stresses in their country of origin, experiences in transit and reception on arrival, including significant barriers to accessing mainstream services. Their contact with health care is often crisis-driven and mediated through non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a psychosocial intervention recommended by the World Health Organisation to address distress experienced by adults affected by humanitarian crises. We are investigating its application for the first time in a high-income country. METHODS: In a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), PM+ will be delivered to AS&Rs in contact with NGOs in Liverpool City Region, UK by lay therapists who have lived experience of forced migration. Following systematic review and stakeholder engagement, PM+ has been adapted to the local context, and lay therapists have been trained in its delivery. We will assess the feasibility of conducting a three-arm RCT of five 90-min sessions of PM+, delivered individually or in groups by lay therapists to AS&Rs experiencing emotional distress and functional impairment, compared with each other and with usual support offered by local NGOs. Distress and impairment at baseline will be measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS). We aim to recruit 105 participants, 35 per arm. Primary health outcomes are anxiety and depressive symptoms at 3 months, measured by HADS. Secondary outcomes include subjective wellbeing, functional status, progress on identified problems, presence of post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorder and service usage. Longer-term impact will be assessed at 6 months post baseline, on the same parameters. We will assess the feasibility of conducting a full RCT in relation to the following elements: recruitment and retention of lay therapists and study participants; fidelity of delivery of PM+; and suitability of the study measures, including any linguistic or cultural barriers. DISCUSSION: We will use these findings to specify the parameters for a full RCT to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PM+ in reducing emotional distress and health inequalities, and improving functional ability and wellbeing, amongst asylum seekers and refugees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN15214107. Registered on 10 September 2019.

Rehabilitation for Survivors of the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda: What Are the Lessons Learned?

Rehabilitation remains a significant concern among survivors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Rehabilitation falls under tertiary prevention, which is a core function of public health. Despite efforts to introduce various rehabilitation programmes for genocide survivors in Rwanda, these initiatives have often proved inadequate in meeting their long-term needs. The failure of the Rwandan Government, international community, United Nations, and other Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) calls into serious question their commitment to international human rights laws. Rehabilitation should be regarded as a free-standing human right for genocide survivors and a human rights-based approach to the rehabilitative process should incorporate measurable outcomes based on an agreed ethical framework. The author calls upon the international community to reiterate its concerns about genocide survivors and reaffirm its commitments to human rights. The main issues discussed in this article are: the long-term needs of survivors of the 1994 genocide; what is already provided, and the gaps; how Stucki's Rehabilitation Cycle framework (a problem-solving tool) can help improve current provision; the role of the international community, NGOs, and genocide survivors' organisations in advancing rehabilitation; and the need for a human rights-based approach to rehabilitation. A strong recognition of the right to rehabilitation is crucial. An ethical framework related to the human rights-based approach should also assist in setting outcomes that can be measured against agreed standards, ensuring: rights that have been violated are identified; the accountability of each service provider in promoting rehabilitation; rehabilitation which is inclusive and non-discriminatory; participation by encouraging collaboration with survivors rather than doing things for them; and empowerment by enabling survivors to understand their rights and have the confidence to challenge or question when their rights have been violated.