Task Sharing and Remote Delivery of Brief Interpersonal Counseling for Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees Living in Peru during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.

Refugees and migrants experience an elevated risk for mental health problems and face significant barriers to receiving services. Interpersonal counseling (IPC-3) is a three-session intervention that can be delivered by non-specialists to provide psychological support and facilitate referrals for individuals in need of specialized care. We piloted IPC-3 delivered remotely by eight Venezuelan refugee and migrant women living in Peru. These counselors provided IPC-3 to Venezuelan refugee and migrant clients in Peru (n = 32) who reported psychological distress. Clients completed assessments of mental health symptoms at baseline and one-month post-intervention. A subset of clients (n = 15) and providers (n = 8) completed post-implementation qualitative interviews. Results showed that IPC-3 filled a gap in the system of mental health care for refugees and migrants in Peru. Some adaptations were made to IPC-3 to promote its relevance to the population and context. Non-specialist providers developed the skills and confidence to provide IPC-3 competently. Clients displayed large reductions in symptoms of depression (d = 1.1), anxiety (d = 1.4), post-traumatic stress (d = 1.0), and functional impairment (d = 0.8). Remote delivery of IPC-3 by non-specialists appears to be a feasible, acceptable, and appropriate strategy to address gaps and improve efficiency within the mental health system and warrants testing in a fully powered effectiveness study.

Comparing Mediators and Moderators of Mental Health Outcomes from the Implementation of Group Problem Management Plus (PM+) among Venezuelan Refugees and Migrants and Colombian Returnees in Northern Colombia.

Colombia hosts the largest number of refugees and migrants fleeing the humanitarian emergency in Venezuela, many of whom experience high levels of displacement-related trauma and adversity. Yet, Colombian mental health services do not meet the needs of this population. Scalable, task-sharing interventions, such as Group Problem Management Plus (Group PM+), have the potential to bridge this gap by utilizing lay workers to provide the intervention. However, the current literature lacks a comprehensive understanding of how and for whom Group PM+ is most effective. This mixed methods study utilized data from a randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to examine the mediators and moderators of Group PM+ on mental health outcomes. One hundred twenty-eight migrant and refugee women in northern Colombia participated in Group PM+ delivered by trained community members. Patterns in moderation effects showed that participants in more stable, less marginalized positions improved the most. Results from linear regression models showed that Group PM+-related skill acquisition was not a significant mediator of the association between session attendance and mental health outcomes. Participants and facilitators reported additional possible mediators and community-level moderators that warrant future research. Further studies are needed to examine mediators and moderators contributing to the effectiveness of task-shared, scalable, psychological interventions in diverse contexts.

Comparing implementation strategies for training and supervising nonspecialists in Group Problem Management Plus: A hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial in Colombia.

Migrants and refugees face elevated risks for mental health problems but have limited access to services. This study compared two strategies for training and supervising nonspecialists to deliver a scalable psychological intervention, Group Problem Management Plus (gPM+), in northern Colombia. Adult women who reported elevated psychological distress and functional impairment were randomized to receive gPM+ delivered by nonspecialists who received training and supervision by: 1) a psychologist (specialized technical support); or 2) a nonspecialist who had been trained as a trainer/supervisor (nonspecialized technical support). We examined effectiveness and implementation outcomes using a mixed-methods approach. Thirteen nonspecialists were trained as gPM+ facilitators and three were trained-as-trainers. We enrolled 128 women to participate in gPM+ across the two conditions. Intervention attendance was higher in the specialized technical support condition. The nonspecialized technical support condition demonstrated higher fidelity to gPM+ and lower cost of implementation. Other indicators of effectiveness, adoption and implementation were comparable between the two implementation strategies. These results suggest it is feasible to implement mental health interventions, like gPM+, using lower-resource, community-embedded task sharing models, while maintaining safety and fidelity. Further evidence from fully powered trials is needed to make definitive conclusions about the relative cost of these implementation strategies.