Psychological and social interventions for the promotion of mental health in people living in low- and middle-income countries affected by humanitarian crises.

BACKGROUND: Because of wars, conflicts, persecutions, human rights violations, and humanitarian crises, about 84 million people are forcibly displaced around the world; the great majority of them live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). People living in humanitarian settings are affected by a constellation of stressors that threaten their mental health. Psychosocial interventions for people affected by humanitarian crises may be helpful to promote positive aspects of mental health, such as mental well-being, psychosocial functioning, coping, and quality of life. Previous reviews have focused on treatment and mixed promotion and prevention interventions. In this review, we focused on promotion of positive aspects of mental health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions aimed at promoting mental health versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases to January 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) to promote positive aspects of mental health in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were mental well-being, functioning, quality of life, resilience, coping, hope, and prosocial behaviour. The secondary outcome was acceptability, defined as the number of participants who dropped out of the trial for any reason. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the outcomes of mental well-being, functioning, and prosocial behaviour. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs with 7917 participants. Nine RCTs were conducted on children/adolescents, and four on adults. All included interventions were delivered to groups of participants, mainly by paraprofessionals. Paraprofessional is defined as an individual who is not a mental or behavioural health service professional, but works at the first stage of contact with people who are seeking mental health care. Four RCTs were carried out in Lebanon; two in India; and single RCTs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Jordan, Haiti, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the occupied Palestinian Territories (oPT), Nepal, and Tanzania. The mean study duration was 18 weeks (minimum 10, maximum 32 weeks). Trials were generally funded by grants from academic institutions or non-governmental organisations. For children and adolescents, there was no clear difference between psychosocial interventions and control conditions in improving mental well-being and prosocial behaviour at study endpoint (mental well-being: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.29; 3 RCTs, 3378 participants; very low-certainty evidence; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 1633 participants; low-certainty evidence), or at medium-term follow-up (mental well-being: mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.99; 1 RCT, 258 participants; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.80 to 0.83; 2 RCT, 483 participants; both very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may improve functioning (MD -2.18, 95% CI -3.86 to -0.50; 1 RCT, 183 participants), with sustained effects at follow-up (MD -3.33, 95% CI -5.03 to -1.63; 1 RCT, 183 participants), but evidence is very uncertain as the data came from one RCT (both very low-certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may improve mental well-being slightly in adults at study endpoint (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; 3 RCTs, 674 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they may have little to no effect at follow-up, as the evidence is uncertain and future RCTs might either confirm or disprove this finding. No RCTs measured the outcomes of functioning and prosocial behaviour in adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, there is scant and inconclusive randomised evidence on the potential benefits of psychological and social interventions to promote mental health in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of studies included in the review, the small number of participants analysed, the risk of bias in the studies, and the substantial level of heterogeneity. Evidence on the efficacy of interventions on positive mental health outcomes is too scant to determine firm practice and policy implications. This review has identified a large gap between what is known and what still needs to be addressed in the research area of mental health promotion in humanitarian settings.

Correction: Effects of a WHO-guided digital health intervention for depression in Syrian refugees in Lebanon: A randomized controlled trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004025.].

COVID-19 and common mental health symptoms in the early phase of the pandemic: An umbrella review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: There remains uncertainty about the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health. This umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the association between the pandemic and common mental disorders. We qualitatively summarized evidence from reviews with meta-analyses of individual study-data in the general population, healthcare workers, and specific at-risk populations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic search was carried out in 5 databases for peer-reviewed systematic reviews with meta-analyses of prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms during the pandemic published between December 31, 2019 until August 12, 2022. We identified 123 reviews of which 7 provided standardized mean differences (SMDs) either from longitudinal pre- to during pandemic study-data or from cross-sectional study-data compared to matched pre-pandemic data. Methodological quality rated with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist scores (AMSTAR 2) instrument was generally low to moderate. Small but significant increases of depression, anxiety, and/or general mental health symptoms were reported in the general population, in people with preexisting physical health conditions, and in children (3 reviews; SMDs ranged from 0.11 to 0.28). Mental health and depression symptoms significantly increased during periods of social restrictions (1 review; SMDs of 0.41 and 0.83, respectively) but anxiety symptoms did not (SMD: 0.26). Increases of depression symptoms were generally larger and longer-lasting during the pandemic (3 reviews; SMDs depression ranged from 0.16 to 0.23) than those of anxiety (2 reviews: SMDs 0.12 and 0.18). Females showed a significantly larger increase in anxiety symptoms than males (1 review: SMD 0.15). In healthcare workers, people with preexisting mental disorders, any patient group, children and adolescents, and in students, no significant differences from pre- to during pandemic were found (2 reviews; SMD's ranging from -0.16 to 0.48). In 116 reviews pooled cross-sectional prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms ranged from 9% to 48% across populations. Although heterogeneity between studies was high and largely unexplained, assessment tools and cut-offs used, age, sex or gender, and COVID-19 exposure factors were found to be moderators in some reviews. The major limitations are the inability to quantify and explain the high heterogeneity across reviews included and the shortage of within-person data from multiple longitudinal studies. CONCLUSIONS: A small but consistent deterioration of mental health and particularly depression during early pandemic and during social restrictions has been found in the general population and in people with chronic somatic disorders. Also, associations between mental health and the pandemic were stronger in females and younger age groups than in others. Explanatory individual-level, COVID-19 exposure, and time-course factors were scarce and showed inconsistencies across reviews. For policy and research, repeated assessments of mental health in population panels including vulnerable individuals are recommended to respond to current and future health crises.

Feasibility randomised controlled trial of the Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions psychological intervention with young adolescents in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: Globally, there is a vast mental health treatment gap, whereby the majority of adolescents living in low- and middle-income countries requiring mental health services, do not have access to adequate care. To improve access, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a range of interventions, designed to be low-cost and delivered by non-specialists. We conducted a two-arm, individually randomised group treatment feasibility trial of a new WHO group intervention for young adolescents with emotional distress ('Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions'; EASE) in Lebanon. METHOD: The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of the intervention and study procedures. Adolescents aged 10 to 14 years were eligible to take part if they scored above a validated cut-off on the Child Psychosocial Distress Screener. Participants were randomized to EASE or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) control using a 1:1 ratio. EASE consisted of seven group sessions with adolescents and three sessions with caregivers. ETAU consisted of a single brief psychoeducation home visit. Child and caregiver outcomes were measured by blind assessors at baseline, endline (8 weeks post-randomisation), and three month follow-up (20 weeks post-randomisation), with the primary outcome measure being child psychological symptoms on the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Qualitative interviews were conducted with adolescents (n = 13), caregivers (n = 17), facilitators (n = 6), trainers (n = 3), and outreach staff (n = 1) at endline to assess barriers and facilitators related to the feasibility and delivery of EASE and study procedures. RESULTS: Of 154 adolescents screened, 67 (43%) were eligible, completed baseline, and were randomized. Sixty adolescents (90%) completed endline assessments (31 EASE, 29 ETAU), and fifty-nine (88%) completed three-month assessments (29 EASE, 30 ETAU). Qualitatively, participants provided overall positive feedback about the intervention. Several challenges and suggestions for improvement were raised around logistics, intervention content, and acceptability of assessment measures. Implementation data highlighted challenges with intervention uptake and attendance. Outcome measures generally had strong psychometric properties (range: α = 0.77 to α = 87), however did not demonstrate change over time in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The EASE intervention and study procedures are acceptable and feasible for implementation with vulnerable adolescents in Lebanon, however several improvements are necessary prior to full-scale evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #ISRCTN60799626, retrospectively registered on 04/10/2022.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 mortality in people with pre-existing mental disorders: an umbrella review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious health risk, especially in vulnerable populations. Even before the pandemic, people with mental disorders had worse physical health outcomes compared to the general population. This umbrella review investigated whether having a pre-pandemic mental disorder was associated with worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Following a pre-registered protocol available on the Open Science Framework platform, we searched Ovid MEDLINE All, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science up to the 6th of October 2021 for systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 on people with pre-existing mental disorders. The following outcomes were considered: risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection, risk of severe illness, COVID-19 related mortality risk, risk of long-term physical symptoms after COVID-19. For meta-analyses, we considered adjusted odds ratio (OR) as effect size measure. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment with the AMSTAR 2 tool have been done in parallel and duplicate. RESULTS: We included five meta-analyses and four narrative reviews. The meta-analyses reported that people with any mental disorder had an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.09-2.69), severe illness course (OR from 1.32 to 1.77, 95%CI between 1.19-1.46 and 1.29-2.42, respectively) and COVID-19 related mortality (OR from 1.38 to 1.52, 95%CI between 1.15-1.65 and 1.20-1.93, respectively) as compared to the general population. People with anxiety disorders had an increased risk of SAR-CoV-2 infection, but not increased mortality. People with mood and schizophrenia spectrum disorders had an increased COVID-19 related mortality but without evidence of increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness. Narrative reviews were consistent with findings from the meta-analyses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: As compared to the general population, there is strong evidence showing that people with pre-existing mental disorders suffered from worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and may therefore be considered a risk group similar to people with underlying physical conditions. Factors likely involved include living accommodations with barriers to social distancing, cardiovascular comorbidities, psychotropic medications and difficulties in accessing high-intensity medical care.

Evaluation of the Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions (EASE) intervention in Lebanon: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for scalable evidence-based psychological interventions for young adolescents experiencing high levels of psychological distress in humanitarian settings and low- and middle-income countries. Poor mental health during adolescence presents a serious public health concern as it is a known predictor of persistent mental disorders in adulthood. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a new group-based intervention developed by the World Health Organization (Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions; EASE), implemented by non-specialists, to reduce young adolescents' psychological distress among mostly Syrian refugees in Lebanon. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, individually randomized group treatment trial. Adolescents aged 10 to 14 years who screened positive for psychological distress using the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) were randomly allocated to EASE or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) (1:1.6). ETAU consisted of a single scripted psycho-education home-visit session with the adolescent and their caregivers. EASE consists of seven group sessions with adolescents and three sessions with caregivers. The primary outcome was adolescent-reported psychological distress as measured with the PSC (internalizing, externalizing, and attentional symptoms). Secondary outcomes included depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, and caregivers' parenting and distress. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, endline, and 3 months (primary time point) and 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other adversities in Lebanon at the time of this research, the study was prematurely terminated, resulting in an under-powered trial sample (n = 198 enrolled compared to n = 445 targeted). We screened 604 children for eligibility. The 198 enrolled adolescents were assigned to EASE (n = 80) and ETAU (n = 118), with retention rates between 76.1 and 88.4% across all timepoints. Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated no between-group differences on any of the outcome measures between the EASE and ETAU. We did observe a significant improvement on the primary outcome equally in the EASE and ETAU groups (-0.90, 95% CI: -3.6, 1.8; p = .52), - a trend that was sustained at three months follow-up. Sub-group analyses, for those with higher depression symptoms at baseline, showed ETAU outperformed EASE on reducing depression symptoms (difference in mean change = 2.7, 95% CI: 0.1, 5.3; p = .04; d = 0.59) and internalizing problems (difference in mean change 1.0, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.9; p = .03; d = 0.56) . CONCLUSION: No conclusions can be drawn about the comparative effectiveness of the intervention given that the sample was underpowered as a result of early termination. Both EASE and single session psycho-education home visits resulted in meaningful improvements in reducing psychological distress. We did not identify any indications in the data suggesting that EASE was more effective than a single session family intervention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises in Lebanon. Fully powered research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of EASE.

Effectiveness of a brief group behavioural intervention on psychological distress in young adolescent Syrian refugees: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Millions of young adolescents in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) affected by humanitarian crises experience elevated rates of poor mental health. There is a need for scalable programs that can improve the mental health of young adolescents. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a nonspecialist delivered group-based intervention (Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions (EASE)) to improve young adolescents' mental health. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this single-blind, parallel, controlled trial, Syrian refugees aged 10 to 14 years in Jordan were identified through screening of psychological distress as defined by scores ≥15 on the Paediatric Symptom Scale. Participants were randomised to either EASE or enhanced usual care (EUC) involving referral to local psychosocial services (on a 1:1.6 ratio). Participants were aware of treatment allocation but assessors were blinded. Primary outcomes were scores on the Paediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC; internalising, externalising, and attentional difficulty scales) assessed at week 0, 9 weeks, and 3 months after treatment (primary outcome time point). It was hypothesised that EASE would result in greater reductions on internalising symptoms than EUC. Secondary outcomes were depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, school belongingness, and caregivers' parenting and mental health. Between June 2019 and January 2020, 1,842 young adolescent refugees were screened for eligibility on the basis of psychological distress. There were 520 adolescents (28.2%) who screened positive, of whom 471 (90.6%) agreed to enter the trial. Overall, 185 were assigned to EASE and 286 to EUC, and 169 and 254 were retained at 3 months for EASE and EUC, respectively. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that at 3 months, EASE resulted in greater reduction on the PSC-internalising scale than EUC (estimated mean difference 0.69, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.19; p = 0.007; effect size, 0.38) but there were no differences for PSC-externalising (estimated mean difference 0.24, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.91; p = 0.49; effect size, -0.10), PSC-attentional problem (estimated mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.54; p = 0.97; effect size, -0.01) scores, or on depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, or school belongingness. Relative to EUC, caregivers in EASE had less psychological distress (estimated mean difference 1.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.19; p = 0.002) and inconsistent disciplinary parenting (mean difference 1.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.05; p < 0.001). Secondary analyses that (a) focused on adolescents with probable internalising disorders; (b) completed the 3-month assessment; and (c) controlled for trauma exposure did not alter the primary results. Mediation analysis indicated that for caregivers in the EASE condition, reduction in inconsistent disciplinary parenting was associated with reduced attentional (ß = 0.11, SE 0.07; 95% CI 0.003, 0.274) and internalising (ß = 0.11, SE 0.07; 95% CI 0.003, 0.274) problems in their children. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. A limitation was that EUC was not matched to EASE in terms of facilitator attention or group involvement. CONCLUSIONS: EASE led to reduced internalising problems in young refugee adolescents and was associated with reduced distress and less inconsistent disciplinary parenting in caregivers. This intervention has the potential as a scalable intervention to mitigate young adolescents' emotional difficulties in LMIC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered at Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12619000341123.

Effects of a WHO-guided digital health intervention for depression in Syrian refugees in Lebanon: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most displaced people with mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries do not receive effective care, and their access to care has deteriorated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Digital mental health interventions are scalable when digital access is adequate, and they can be safely delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined whether a new WHO-guided digital mental health intervention, Step-by-Step, in which participants were supported by a nonspecialist helper, was effective in reducing depression among displaced people in Lebanon. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a single-blind, 2-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial, comparing guided Step-by-Step with enhanced care as usual (ECAU) among displaced Syrians suffering from depression and impaired functioning in Lebanon. Primary outcomes were depression (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-9) and impaired functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule-12, WHODAS) at posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included subjective well-being, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and self-described problems. A total of 569 displaced people from Syria with depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) and impaired functioning (WHODAS > 16) were randomized to Step-by-Step (N = 283; lost to follow-up: N = 167) or ECAU (N = 286; lost to follow-up: 133). Participants were considered to be lost to follow-up when they did not fill in the outcome measures at posttest or follow-up. Recruitment started on December 9, 2019 and was completed on July 9, 2020. The last follow-up assessments were collected in December 2020. The study team had access to the online platform, where they could see treatment arm assignment for each participant. All questionnaires were completed by participants online. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses showed intervention effects on depression (standardized mean differences [SMDs]: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26; 0.70; p < 0.001), impaired functioning (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14; 0.56; p < 0.001), post-traumatic stress (SMD: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16; 0.56; p < 0.001), anxiety (SMD: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24; 0.68; p < 0.001), subjective well-being (SMD: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26; 0.68; p < 0.001), and self-identified personal problems (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI 0.28; 0.70; p < 0.001). Significant effects on all outcomes were maintained at 3 months follow-up. During the trial, one serious adverse event occurred, unrelated to the intervention. The main limitation of the current trial is the high dropout rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that a guided, digital intervention was effective in reducing depression in displaced people in Lebanon. The guided WHO Step-by-Step intervention we examined should be made available to communities of displaced people that have digital access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720769.

Effectiveness of Group Problem Management Plus, a brief psychological intervention for adults affected by humanitarian disasters in Nepal: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

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.

Effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in Preventing Mental Disorders in Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Western Europe: A Multinational Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Self-Help Plus (SH+) is a group-based psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization for managing stress. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of SH+ in preventing mental disorders in refugees and asylum seekers in Western Europe. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 5 European countries. Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire score ≥3), but without a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) or ICD/10 diagnosis of mental disorder, as assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), were randomized to SH+ or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The primary outcome was the frequency of mental disorders with the MINI at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of mental disorders at postintervention, self-identified problems, psychological symptoms, and other outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-nine individuals were randomly assigned to SH+ or ETAU. For the primary outcome, we found no difference in the frequency of mental disorders at 6 months (Cramer V = 0.007, p = 0.90, RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.52-1.78), while the difference significantly favored SH+ at after the intervention (secondary outcome, measured within 2 weeks from the last session; Cramer V = 0.13, p = 0.01, RR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized indicated prevention study with the aim of preventing the onset of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees in Western Europe. As a prevention effect of SH+ was not observed at 6 months, but rather after the intervention only, modalities to maintain its beneficial effect in the long term need to be identified.

New WHO prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Existing WHO estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders in emergency settings are more than a decade old and do not reflect modern methods to gather existing data and derive estimates. We sought to update WHO estimates for the prevalence of mental disorders in conflict-affected settings and calculate the burden per 1000 population. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we updated a previous systematic review by searching MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, and Embase for studies published between Jan 1, 2000, and Aug 9, 2017, on the prevalence of depression, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. We also searched the grey literature, such as government reports, conference proceedings, and dissertations, to source additional data, and we searched datasets from existing literature reviews of the global prevalence of depression and anxiety and reference lists from the studies that were identified. We applied the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting and used Bayesian meta-regression techniques that adjust for predictors of mental disorders to calculate new point prevalence estimates with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) in settings that had experienced conflict less than 10 years previously. FINDINGS: We estimated that the prevalence of mental disorders (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia) was 22·1% (95% UI 18·8-25·7) at any point in time in the conflict-affected populations assessed. The mean comorbidity-adjusted, age-standardised point prevalence was 13·0% (95% UI 10·3-16·2) for mild forms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder and 4·0% (95% UI 2·9-5·5) for moderate forms. The mean comorbidity-adjusted, age-standardised point prevalence for severe disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, severe anxiety, and severe post-traumatic stress disorder) was 5·1% (95% UI 4·0-6·5). As only two studies provided epidemiological data for psychosis in conflict-affected populations, existing Global Burden of Disease Study estimates for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were applied in these estimates for conflict-affected populations. INTERPRETATION: The burden of mental disorders is high in conflict-affected populations. Given the large numbers of people in need and the humanitarian imperative to reduce suffering, there is an urgent need to implement scalable mental health interventions to address this burden. FUNDING: WHO; Queensland Department of Health, Australia; and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Effectiveness of a brief group psychological intervention for women in a post-conflict setting in Pakistan: a single-blind, cluster, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many women are affected by anxiety and depression after armed conflict in low-income and middle-income countries, yet few scalable options for their mental health care exist. We aimed to establish the effectiveness of a brief group psychological intervention for women in a conflict-affected setting in rural Swat, Pakistan. METHODS: In a single-blind, cluster, randomised, controlled trial, 34 community clusters in two union councils of rural Swat, Pakistan, were randomised using block permutation at a 1:1 ratio to intervention (group intervention with five sessions incorporating behavioural strategies facilitated by non-specialists) or control (enhanced usual care) groups. Researchers responsible for identifying participants, obtaining consent, enrolment, and outcome assessments were masked to allocation. A community cluster was defined as neighbourhood of about 150 households covered by a lady health worker. Women aged 18-60 years who provided written informed consent, resided in the participating cluster catchment areas, scored at least 3 on the General Health Questionnaire-12, and at least 17 on the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule were recruited. The primary outcome, combined anxiety and depression symptoms, was measured 3 months after the intervention with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Modified intention-to-treat analyses were done using mixed models adjusted for covariates and clusters defined a priori. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number 12616000037404, and is now closed to new participants. FINDINGS: From 34 eligible community clusters, 306 women in the intervention group and 306 women in the enhanced usual care (EUC) group were enrolled between Jan 11, 2016, and Aug 21, 2016, and the results of 288 (94%) of 306 women in the intervention group and 290 (95%) of 306 women in the EUC group were included in the primary endpoint analysis. At 3 months, women in the intervention group had significantly lower mean total scores on the HADS than women in the control group (10·01 [SD 7·54] vs 14·75 [8·11]; adjusted mean difference [AMD] -4·53, 95% CI -7·13 to -1·92; p=0·0007). Individual HADS anxiety scores were also significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (5·43 [SD 4·18] vs 8·02 [4·69]; AMD -2·52, 95% CI -4·04 to -1·01), as were depression scores (4·59 [3·87] vs 6·73 [3·91]; AMD -2·04, -3·19 to -0·88). No adverse events were reported in either group. INTERPRETATION: Our group psychological intervention resulted in clinically significant reductions in anxiety and depressive symptoms at 3 months, and might be a feasible and effective option for women with psychological distress in rural post-conflict settings. FUNDING: WHO through a grant from the Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance.

Cost-effectiveness of WHO Problem Management Plus for adults with mood and anxiety disorders in a post-conflict area of Pakistan: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: With the development of evidence-based interventions for treatment of priority mental health conditions in humanitarian settings, it is important to establish the cost-effectiveness of such interventions to enable their scale-up. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Problem Management Plus (PM+) intervention compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) for common mental disorders in primary healthcare in Peshawar, Pakistan. Trial registration ACTRN12614001235695 (anzctr.org.au). METHOD: We randomly allocated 346 participants to either PM+ (n = 172) or EUC (n = 174). Effectiveness was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 3 months post-intervention. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as incremental costs (measured in Pakistani rupees, PKR) per unit change in anxiety, depression and functioning scores. RESULTS: The total cost of delivering PM+ per participant was estimated at PKR 16 967 (US$163.14) using an international trainer and supervisor, and PKR 3645 (US$35.04) employing a local trainer. The mean cost per unit score improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the HADS was PKR 2957 (95% CI 2262-4029) (US$28) with an international trainer/supervisor and PKR 588 (95% CI 434-820) (US$6) with a local trainer/supervisor. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to successfully treat a case of depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) using an international supervisor was PKR 53 770 (95% CI 39 394-77 399) (US$517), compared with PKR 10 705 (95% CI 7731-15 627) (US$102.93) using a local supervisor. CONCLUSIONS: The PM+ intervention was more effective but also more costly than EUC in reducing symptoms of anxiety, depression and improving functioning in adults impaired by psychological distress in a post-conflict setting of Pakistan.

Psychological and social interventions for the prevention of mental disorders in people living in low- and middle-income countries affected by humanitarian crises.

BACKGROUND: People living in 'humanitarian settings' in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of physical and psychological stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. A range of psychological and social interventions have been implemented with the aim to prevent the onset of mental disorders and/or lower psychological distress in populations at risk, and it is not known whether interventions are effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of psychological and social interventions versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at preventing the onset of non-psychotic mental disorders in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR), the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and ProQuest PILOTS database with results incorporated from searches to February 2020. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological and social interventions versus control conditions to prevent the onset of mental disorders in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy) and at medium term (one to four months after intervention). No data were available at long term (six months or longer). We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In the present review we included seven RCTs with a total of 2398 participants, coming from both children/adolescents (five RCTs), and adults (two RCTs). Together, the seven RCTs compared six different psychosocial interventions against a control comparator (waiting list in all studies). All the interventions were delivered by paraprofessionals and, with the exception of one study, delivered at a group level. None of the included studies provided data on the efficacy of interventions to prevent the onset of mental disorders (incidence). For the primary outcome of acceptability, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social interventions and control at endpoint for children and adolescents (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10; 5 studies, 1372 participants; low-quality evidence) or adults (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.50; 2 studies, 767 participants; very low quality evidence). No information on adverse events related to the interventions was available. For children's and adolescents' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social intervention groups and control groups for reducing PTSD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.18; 3 studies, 590 participants; very low quality evidence), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.31; 4 RCTs, 746 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.31; 3 studies, 632 participants; very low quality evidence) at study endpoint. In adults' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, psychological counselling may be effective for reducing depressive symptoms (MD -7.50, 95% CI -9.19 to -5.81; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (MD -6.10, 95% CI -7.57 to -4.63; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) at endpoint. No data were available for PTSD symptoms in the adult population. Owing to the small number of RCTs included in the present review, it was not possible to carry out neither sensitivity nor subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of the seven prevention studies included in this review, none assessed whether prevention interventions reduced the incidence of mental disorders and there may be no evidence for any differences in acceptability. Additionally, for both child and adolescent populations and adult populations, a very small number of RCTs with low quality evidence on the review's secondary outcomes (changes in symptomatology at endpoint) did not suggest any beneficial effect for the studied prevention interventions. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of prevention studies eligible for inclusion in the review, by risk of bias in the studies, and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. Moreover, it is possible that random error had a role in distorting results, and that a more thorough picture of the efficacy of prevention interventions will be provided by future studies. For this reason, prevention studies are urgently needed to assess the impact of interventions on the incidence of mental disorders in children and adults, with extended periods of follow-up.

Public health information in crisis-affected populations: a review of methods and their use for advocacy and action.

Valid and timely information about various domains of public health underpins the effectiveness of humanitarian public health interventions in crises. However, obstacles including insecurity, insufficient resources and skills for data collection and analysis, and absence of validated methods combine to hamper the quantity and quality of public health information available to humanitarian responders. This paper, the second in a Series of four papers, reviews available methods to collect public health data pertaining to different domains of health and health services in crisis settings, including population size and composition, exposure to armed attacks, sexual and gender-based violence, food security and feeding practices, nutritional status, physical and mental health outcomes, public health service availability, coverage and effectiveness, and mortality. The paper also quantifies the availability of a minimal essential set of information in large armed conflict and natural disaster crises since 2010: we show that information was available and timely only in a small minority of cases. On the basis of this observation, we propose an agenda for methodological research and steps required to improve on the current use of available methods. This proposition includes setting up a dedicated interagency service for public health information and epidemiology in crises.

Correction to: Problem management plus (PM+) for common mental disorders in a humanitarian setting in Pakistan; study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Following publication of the original article [1], the first author reported an error in referring his paper.

Psychological therapies for the treatment of mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries affected by humanitarian crises.

BACKGROUND: People living in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. Mental disorders with a higher prevalence in these settings include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform (e.g. medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS)), and related disorders. A range of psychological therapies are used to manage symptoms of mental disorders in this population. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of psychological therapies versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at treating people with mental disorders (PTSD and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform, and related disorders) living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), and PsycINFO (OVID), with results incorporated from searches to 3 February 2016. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological therapies versus control conditions (including no treatment, usual care, wait list, attention placebo, and psychological placebo) to treat adults and children with mental disorders living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane procedures for collecting data and evaluating risk of bias. We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy); at medium term (one to four months after therapy); and at long term (six months or longer). GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and withdrawal outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 studies (33 RCTs) with a total of 3523 participants. Included studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia. Studies were implemented in response to armed conflicts; disasters triggered by natural hazards; and other types of humanitarian crises. Together, the 33 RCTs compared eight psychological treatments against a control comparator.Four studies included children and adolescents between 5 and 18 years of age. Three studies included mixed populations (two studies included participants between 12 and 25 years of age, and one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age). Remaining studies included adult populations (18 years of age or older).Included trials compared a psychological therapy versus a control intervention (wait list in most studies; no treatment; treatment as usual). Psychological therapies were categorised mainly as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in 23 comparisons (including seven comparisons focused on narrative exposure therapy (NET), two focused on common elements treatment approach (CETA), and one focused on brief behavioural activation treatment (BA)); eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) in two comparisons; interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in three comparisons; thought field therapy (TFT) in three comparisons; and trauma or general supportive counselling in two comparisons. Although interventions were described under these categories, several psychotherapeutic elements were common to a range of therapies (i.e. psychoeducation, coping skills).In adults, psychological therapies may substantially reduce endpoint PTSD symptoms compared to control conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.34 to -0.79; 1272 participants; 16 studies; low-quality evidence). The effect is smaller at one to four months (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.31; 1660 participants; 18 studies) and at six months (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.14; 400 participants; five studies). Psychological therapies may also substantially reduce endpoint depression symptoms compared to control conditions (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.67; 1254 participants; 14 studies; low-quality evidence). Similar to PTSD symptoms, follow-up data at one to four months showed a smaller effect on depression (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.21; 1386 participants; 16 studies). Psychological therapies may moderately reduce anxiety at endpoint (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.49; 694 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence) and at one to four months' follow-up after treatment (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.39; 969 participants; seven studies). Dropout rates are probably similar between study conditions (19.5% with control versus 19.1% with psychological therapy (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; 2930 participants; 23 studies, moderate quality evidence)).In children and adolescents, we found very low quality evidence for lower endpoint PTSD symptoms scores in psychotherapy conditions (CBT) compared to control conditions, although the confidence interval is wide (SMD -1.56, 95% CI -3.13 to 0.01; 130 participants; three studies;). No RCTs provided data on major depression or anxiety in children. The effect on withdrawal was uncertain (RR 1.87 95% CI 0.47 to 7.47; 138 participants; 3 studies, low quality evidence).We did not identify any studies that evaluated psychological treatments on (symptoms of) somatoform disorders or MUPS in LMIC humanitarian settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that psychological therapies have large or moderate effects in reducing PTSD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms in adults living in humanitarian settings in LMICs. By one to four month and six month follow-up assessments treatment effects were smaller. Fewer trials were focused on children and adolescents and they provide very low quality evidence of a beneficial effect of psychological therapies in reducing PTSD symptoms at endpoint. Confidence in these findings is influenced by the risk of bias in the studies and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. More research evidence is needed, particularly for children and adolescents over longer periods of follow-up.

Effectiveness of a brief behavioural intervention on psychological distress among women with a history of gender-based violence in urban Kenya: A randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Gender-based violence (GBV) represents a major cause of psychological morbidity worldwide, and particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although there are effective treatments for common mental disorders associated with GBV, they typically require lengthy treatment programs that may limit scaling up in LMICs. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a new 5-session behavioural treatment called Problem Management Plus (PM+) that lay community workers can be taught to deliver. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this single-blind, parallel, randomised controlled trial, adult women who had experienced GBV were identified through community screening for psychological distress and impaired functioning in Nairobi, Kenya. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio either to PM+ delivered in the community by lay community health workers provided with 8 days of training or to facility-based enhanced usual care (EUC) provided by community nurses. Participants were aware of treatment allocation, but research assessors were blinded. The primary outcome was psychological distress as measured by the total score on the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) assessed at 3 months after treatment. Secondary outcomes were impaired functioning (measured by the WHO Disability Adjustment Schedule [WHODAS]), symptoms of posttraumatic stress (measured by the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist [PCL]), personally identified problems (measured by Psychological Outcome Profiles [PSYCHLOPS]), stressful life events (measured by the Life Events Checklist [LEC]), and health service utilisation. Between 15 April 2015 and 20 August 2015, 1,393 women were screened for eligibility on the basis of psychological distress and impaired functioning. Of these, 518 women (37%) screened positive, of whom 421 (81%) were women who had experienced GBV. Of these 421 women, 209 were assigned to PM+ and 212 to EUC. Follow-up assessments were completed on 16 January 2016. The primary analysis was intention to treat and included 53 women in PM+ (25%) and 49 women in EUC (23%) lost to follow-up. The difference between PM+ and EUC in the change from baseline to 3 months on the GHQ-12 was 3.33 (95% CI 1.86-4.79, P = 0.001) in favour of PM+. In terms of secondary outcomes, for WHODAS the difference between PM+ and EUC in the change from baseline to 3-month follow-up was 1.96 (95% CI 0.21-3.71, P = 0.03), for PCL it was 3.95 (95% CI 0.06-7.83, P = 0.05), and for PSYCHLOPS it was 2.15 (95% CI 0.98-3.32, P = 0.001), all in favour of PM+. These estimated differences correspond to moderate effect sizes in favour of PM+ for GHQ-12 score (0.57, 95% CI 0.32-0.83) and PSYCHLOPS (0.67, 95% CI 0.31-1.03), and small effect sizes for WHODAS (0.26, 95% CI 0.02-0.50) and PCL (0.21, 95% CI 0.00-0.41). Twelve adverse events were reported, all of which were suicidal risks detected during screening. No adverse events were attributable to the interventions or the trial. Limitations of the study include no long-term follow-up, reliance on self-report rather than structured interview data, and lack of an attention control condition. CONCLUSIONS: Among a community sample of women in urban Kenya with a history of GBV, a brief, lay-administered behavioural intervention, compared with EUC, resulted in moderate reductions in psychological distress at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001291673.

A two-phase approach for the identification of refugees with priority need for mental health care in Lebanon: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Time and resource efficient mental disorder screening mechanisms are not available to identify the growing number of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons in priority need for mental health care. The aim of this study was to identify efficient screening instruments and mechanisms for the detection of moderate and severe mental disorders in a refugee setting. METHODS: Lay interviewers applied a screening algorithm to detect individuals with severe distress or mental disorders in randomly selected households in a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon. The method included household informant and individual level interviews using a Vignettes of Local Terms and Concepts for mental disorders (VOLTAC), individual and household informant portions of the field-test version of the WHO-UNHCR Assessment Schedule of Serious Symptoms in Humanitarian Settings (WASSS) and the WHO Self Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20). A subset of participants were then reappraised utilizing the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II, and the Global Assessment of Functioning. The study constitutes a secondary analysis of interview data from 283 randomly selected households (n = 748 adult residents) who participated in a mental health disorders prevalence study in 2010. RESULTS: The 5-item household informant portion of WASSS was the most efficient instrument among those tested. It detected adults with severe mental disorders with 95% sensitivity and 71% specificity (Area Under Curve (AUC) = 0.85) and adults with moderate or severe mental disorder with 85.1% sensitivity and 74.8% specificity (AUC = 0.82). The complete screening algorithm demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 58% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a two phase, screen-confirm approach is likely a useful strategy to detect incapacitating mental disorders in humanitarian contexts where mental health specialists are scarce, and that in the context of a multi-step screen confirm mechanism, the household informant portion of field-test version of the WASSS may be an efficient screening tool to identify adults in greatest need for mental health care in humanitarian settings.