Psychometric properties of the German version of the brief resilience scale in persons with mental disorders.

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) was developed to assess individual differences in the ability to recover from stress despite adversity and has been translated into several languages. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties (i.e., item characteristics, reliability, factor structure, measurement invariance, and validity) of the German version of the BRS in persons with mental disorders. A total of N = 5,986 persons admitted to inpatient treatment completed the German version of the BRS and other questionnaires. The discriminating power of the items, the difficulty of the items, and the internal consistency were all sufficient. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure of the BRS, consistent with the findings of the German validation study in a non-clinical sample. The BRS also had strict measurement invariance across diagnostic groups for mental disorders according to ICD-10. Validity was examined using a network analysis, in which the BRS demonstrated positive correlations with life satisfaction, self-efficacy and optimism and negative correlations with somatic symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, and depression. The BRS can serve as a reliable and valid tool for assessing resilience in clinical settings, facilitating the identification of persons with potentially lower psychosocial resources.

Family health partners in regional network structures (NEST): A non-randomized controlled trial among parents of chronically ill and disabled children.

BACKGROUND: The overarching project goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of a cross-sectoral and cross-service provider offering professional support for families with chronically ill and disabled children: so-called Family Health Partners (in German: 'Familien-Gesundheits-Partner' or FGP). This needs-oriented service, which is anchored in regional networks, aims to provide 'holistic' support for families with children in need of care. METHODS: We are carrying out a non-randomized controlled trial with four points of measurement (t0-t3 in 18 months), beginning in January 2022. Both intervention and control group include 102 families. Primary outcome measure is the quality of life, secondary outcomes are resilience factors and associated measures as well as the access to care. Multilevel regression models will be used to analyze the longitudinal data. DISCUSSION: The strength of this study is that it looks at the health and resilience of all family members involved by examining how a FGP can influence the entire family system with regard to increasing quality of life, resilience and self-efficacy. The network structures of FGP also open up better to previously unknown regional supply offers. There are, however, a number of limitations (e.g. type of outcomes, sample size). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was first registered on the German Clinical Trials Register before enrolment of participants started (ID: DRKS00027465, 4 January 2022). In order to promote its dissemination, it was also retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT05418205, 14 June 2022).

Transdiagnostic psychosocial interventions to promote mental health in forcibly displaced persons: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: People forced to leave their homes, such as refugees and internally displaced persons, are exposed to various stressors during their forced displacement, putting them at risk for mental disorders.Objective: To summarize evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions aiming to promote mental health and/or to prevent mental symptoms by fostering transdiagnostic skills in forcibly displaced persons of all ages.Method: Four databases and reference lists were searched for randomized controlled trials on interventions in this population on 11 March 2022. Thirty-six studies were eligible, 32 studies (comprising 5299 participants) were included in random-effects multilevel meta-analyses examining the effects of interventions on mental symptoms and positive mental health (e.g. wellbeing) as well as moderators to account for heterogeneity. OSF Preregistration-ID: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XPMU3Results: Our search resulted in 32 eligible studies, with 10 reporting on children/adolescents and 27 on adult populations. There was no evidence for favourable intervention effects in children/adolescents, with 44.4% of the effect sizes pointing to potentially negative effects yet remaining non-significant. For adult populations, our meta-analyses showed a close-to-significant favourable effect for mental symptoms, M(SMD) = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.69], which was significant when analyses were limited to high-quality studies and larger for clinical compared to non-clinical populations. No effects emerged for positive mental health. Heterogeneity was considerable and could not be explained by various moderators (e.g. type of control, duration, setting, theoretical basis). Certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes limiting the generalizability of our findings.Conclusion: The present review provides at most weak evidence for an effect favouring transdiagnostic psychosocial interventions over control conditions for adult populations but not for children and adolescents. Future research should combine the imperative of humanitarian aid in face of major crises with studying the diverse needs of forcibly displaced persons to improve and tailor future interventions.

This review is the first to examine the efficacy of transdiagnostic interventions for mental health promotion and prevention of mental disorders in forcibly displaced persons of all ages.Overall, we found no favourable effect of transdiagnostic interventions in both children/adolescents and adults. Excluding studies at high risk of bias, there was weak evidence for a small favourable effect in adults, but not in children and adolescents. Thus, so far, there is weak evidence for transdiagnostic interventions in forcibly displaced persons.Research efforts need to match care needs: While most people live and need care in low-income countries, the majority of research has been conducted in high-income countries.