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World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews.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.

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.

CBT treatment delivery formats for panic disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Several in-person and remote delivery formats of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for panic disorder are available, but up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on their comparative efficacy and acceptability is lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of all CBT delivery formats to treat panic disorder. To answer our question we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL, from inception to 1st January 2022. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO. We found a total of 74 trials with 6699 participants. Evidence suggests that face-to-face group [standardised mean differences (s.m.d.) -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.07; CINeMA = moderate], face-to-face individual (s.m.d. -0.43, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.15; CINeMA = Moderate), and guided self-help (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.07; CINeMA = low), are superior to treatment as usual in terms of efficacy, whilst unguided self-help is not (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.16; CINeMA = low). In terms of acceptability (i.e. all-cause discontinuation from the trial) CBT delivery formats did not differ significantly from each other. Our findings are clear in that there are no efficacy differences between CBT delivered as guided self-help, or in the face-to-face individual or group format in the treatment of panic disorder. No CBT delivery format provided high confidence in the evidence at the CINeMA evaluation.

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.

Effectiveness of a scalable, remotely delivered stepped-care intervention to reduce symptoms of psychological distress among Polish migrant workers in the Netherlands: study protocol for the RESPOND randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the mental health of international migrant workers (IMWs). IMWs experience multiple barriers to accessing mental health care. Two scalable interventions developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) were adapted to address some of these barriers: Doing What Matters in times of stress (DWM), a guided self-help web application, and Problem Management Plus (PM +), a brief facilitator-led program to enhance coping skills. This study examines whether DWM and PM + remotely delivered as a stepped-care programme (DWM/PM +) is effective and cost-effective in reducing psychological distress, among Polish migrant workers with psychological distress living in the Netherlands. METHODS: The stepped-care DWM/PM + intervention will be tested in a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) among adult Polish migrant workers with self-reported psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; K10 > 15.9). Participants (n = 212) will be randomized into either the intervention group that receives DWM/PM + with psychological first aid (PFA) and care-as-usual (enhanced care-as-usual or eCAU), or into the control group that receives PFA and eCAU-only (1:1 allocation ratio). Baseline, 1-week post-DWM (week 7), 1-week post-PM + (week 13), and follow-up (week 21) self-reported assessments will be conducted. The primary outcome is psychological distress, assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). Secondary outcomes are self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), resilience, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. In a process evaluation, stakeholders' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DWM/PM + will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is one of the first RCTs that combines two scalable, psychosocial WHO interventions into a stepped-care programme for migrant populations. If proven to be effective, this may bridge the mental health treatment gap IMWs experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register NL9630, 20/07/2021, https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/27052.

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2. MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Addressing mental health problems among persons without stable housing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a randomised trial. RESPOND - France.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on population-wide mental health and well-being. Although people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage may be especially vulnerable, they experience barriers in accessing mental health care. To overcome these barriers, the World Health Organization (WHO) designed two scalable psychosocial interventions, namely the web-based Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and the face-to-face Problem Management Plus (PM+), to help people manage stressful situations. Our study aims to test the effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among individuals experiencing unstable housing in France - a majority of whom are migrant or have sought asylum. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among persons with psychological distress and experiencing unstable housing, in comparison to enhanced care as usual (eCAU). Participants (N = 210) will be randomised to two parallel groups: eCAU or eCAU plus the stepped-care program. The main study outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). DISCUSSION: This randomised controlled trial will contribute to a better understanding of effective community-based scalable strategies that can help address the mental health needs of persons experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, whose needs are high yet who frequently have limited access to mental health care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this randomised trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT05033210.

Editorial: Primum non nocere - are adverse events accurately reported in studies on psychological interventions for children?

Adverse Events (AEs) are defined as any unfavorable and unintended sign or symptom, that may occur during or after receipt of any intervention. The principle of non-maleficence requires careful consideration to ensure that existing or new psychological interventions are not harmful before they can be considered beneficial. In this context, the safety of psychological interventions, including the possible occurrence of AEs, is increasingly important for patients, families, and clinicians. The evaluation of AEs is crucial to obtain a complete understanding of the risk/benefit balance of psychological interventions. There is a need for researchers and clinicians to assess and report AEs comprehensively and in a coordinated manner. It is necessary to have more accurate data on the recording of AEs in protocols to enhance transparency and consistency, as well as to improve practice. Finally, and to facilitate this process, there is a need for standards for data collection.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. AIMS: To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). RESULTS: We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = -0.67, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI -0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = -0.61, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. CONCLUSIONS: CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

Community-based interventions for improving mental health in refugee children and adolescents in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: An unprecedented number of people around the world are experiencing forced displacement due to natural or man-made events. More than 50% of refugees worldwide are children or adolescents. In addition to the challenges of settling in a new country, many have witnessed or experienced traumatic events. Therefore, refugee children and adolescents are at risk of developing mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and require appropriate and effective support within communities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and acceptability of community-based interventions (RCTs only) in comparison with controls (no treatment, waiting list, alternative treatment) for preventing and treating mental health problems (major depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress) and improving mental health in refugee children and adolescents in high-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: Databases searches included the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (all available years), CENTRAL/CDSR (2021, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, and two trials registries to 21 February 2021. We checked reference lists of included study reports.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies of any design were eligible as long as they included child or adolescent refugees and evaluated a community-based mental health intervention in a high-income country. At a second stage, we selected randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For randomised controlled trials, we extracted data relating to the study and participant characteristics, and outcome data relating to the results of the trial. For studies using other evaluation methods, we extracted data relating to the study and participant characteristics. W derived evidence on the efficacy and availability of interventions from the randomised controlled trials only. Data were synthesised narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 5005 records and sought full-text manuscripts of 62 relevant records. Three randomised controlled trials were included in this review. Key concerns in the risk of bias assessments included a lack of clarity about the randomisation process, potential for bias is outcome measurement, and risk of bias in the selection of results. Primary outcomes There was no evidence of an effect of community-based interventions when compared with a waiting list for symptoms of post-traumatic stress (mean difference (MD) -1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.78 to 3.86: 1 study; low-certainty evidence), symptoms of depression (MD 0.26, 95% CI -2.15 to 2.67: 1 study; low-certainty evidence), and psychological distress (MD -10.5, 95% CI -47.94 to 26.94; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).  There were no data on adverse events. Secondary outcomes Three trials reported on short-term changes in child behaviour, using different measures, and found no evidence of an effect of the intervention versus a waiting list (low to very low certainty). None of the trials reported on quality of life or well-being, participation and functioning, or participant satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and acceptability of community-based mental health interventions for refugee children and adolescents.

Efficacy of interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services: umbrella review of randomised evidence.

BACKGROUND: Coercive treatment comprises a broad range of practices, ranging from implicit or explicit pressure to accept certain treatment to the use of forced practices such as involuntary admission, seclusion and restraint. Coercion is common in mental health services. AIMS: To evaluate the strength and credibility of evidence on the efficacy of interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services. Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S76T3. METHOD: Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration, and Epistemonikos from January 2010 to January 2020 for meta-analyses of randomised studies. Summary effects were recalculated using a common metric and random-effects models. We assessed between-study heterogeneity, predictive intervals, publication bias, small-study effects and whether the results of the observed positive studies were more than expected by chance. On the basis of these calculations, strength of associations was classified using quantitative umbrella review criteria, and credibility of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 23 primary studies (19 conducted in European countries and 4 in the USA) enrolling 8554 participants were included. The evidence on the efficacy of staff training to reduce use of restraint was supported by the most robust evidence (relative risk RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.87; suggestive association, GRADE: moderate), followed by evidence on the efficacy of shared decision-making interventions to reduce involuntary admissions of adults with severe mental illness (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.92; weak association, GRADE: moderate) and by the evidence on integrated care interventions (RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.46-0.95; weak association, GRADE: low). By contrast, community treatment orders and adherence therapy had no effect on involuntary admission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Different levels of evidence indicate the benefit of staff training, shared decision-making interventions and integrated care interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services. These different levels of evidence should be considered in the development of policy, clinical and implementation initiatives to reduce coercive practices in mental healthcare, and should lead to further studies in both high- and low-income countries to improve the strength and credibility of the evidence base.

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.

Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Community-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.  SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).   SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.  PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).  Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.  For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.  Analysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.  MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).  Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.  Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.  "Probably", "may", or "uncertain" indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence.   Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08); d. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53); e. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03); f. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);  g. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death). Women with perinatal depression (PND) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54); b. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14); c. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04); d. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);  e. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs. Adults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings LHW-led interventions a. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15); b. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15); c. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led interventions a. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.   Adults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74); b. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and  functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03); c. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);  d. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs. PHP/CP-led interventions a. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10); b. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence); c. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs. PW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence a. may have uncertain effects.  Adults with severe mental disorders *Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1. LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.  PHP-led or collaborative-care a. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47); b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.  Adults with dementia and carers PHP/LHW-led carer interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08); b. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);  c. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs. Children with PTS or CMDs LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14); b. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);  c. may have little-or-no effect on AEs. CP-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;  b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.

Safety of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19: evidence review and practical recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus pandemic calls for a rapid adaptation of conventional medical practices to meet the evolving needs of such vulnerable patients. People with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may frequently require treatment with psychotropic medications, but are at the same time at higher risk for safety issues because of the complex underlying medical condition and the potential interaction with medical treatments. METHODS: In order to produce evidence-based practical recommendations on the optimal management of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19, an international, multi-disciplinary working group was established. The methodology of the WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines in the context of a public health emergency and the principles of the AGREE statement were followed. Available evidence informing on the risk of respiratory, cardiovascular, infective, hemostatic, and consciousness alterations related to the use of psychotropic medications, and drug-drug interactions between psychotropic and medical treatments used in people with COVID-19, was reviewed and discussed by the working group. RESULTS: All classes of psychotropic medications showed potentially relevant safety risks for people with COVID-19. A set of practical recommendations was drawn in order to inform frontline clinicians on the assessment of the anticipated risk of psychotropic-related unfavorable events, and the possible actions to take in order to effectively manage this risk, such as when it is appropriate to avoid, withdraw, switch, or adjust the dose of the medication. CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence-based recommendations will improve the quality of psychiatric care in people with COVID-19, allowing an appropriate management of the medical condition without worsening the psychiatric condition and vice versa.

Correction to: Safety of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19: evidence review and practical recommendations.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Development and implementation of guidelines for the management of depression: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression globally. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of depression in adults with major depressive or bipolar disorder. For each identified guideline, we assessed compliance with measures of guideline development quality (such as transparency in guideline development processes and funding, multidisciplinary author group composition, systematic review of comparative efficacy research) and implementation (such as quality indicators). We compared guidelines from low- and middle-income countries with those from high-income countries. FINDINGS: We identified 82 national and 13 international clinical practice guidelines from 83 countries in 27 languages. Guideline development processes and funding sources were explicitly specified in a smaller proportion of guidelines from low- and middle-income countries (8/29; 28%) relative to high-income countries (35/58; 60%). Fewer guidelines (2/29; 7%) from low- and middle-income countries, relative to high-income countries (22/58; 38%), were authored by a multidisciplinary development group. A systematic review of comparative effectiveness was conducted in 31% (9/29) of low- and middle-income country guidelines versus 71% (41/58) of high-income country guidelines. Only 10% (3/29) of low- and middle-income country and 19% (11/58) of high-income country guidelines described plans to assess quality indicators or recommendation adherence. CONCLUSION: Globally, guideline implementation is inadequately planned, reported and measured. Narrowing disparities in the development and implementation of guidelines in low- and middle-income countries is a priority. Future guidelines should present strategies to implement recommendations and measure feasibility, cost-effectiveness and impact on health outcomes.

Mediators of focused psychosocial support interventions for children in low-resource humanitarian settings: analysis from an Individual Participant Dataset with 3,143 participants.

BACKGROUND: Research on psychosocial interventions has been focused on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions on mental health outcomes, without exploring how interventions achieve beneficial effects. Identifying the potential pathways through which interventions work would potentially allow further strengthening of interventions by emphasizing specific components connected with such pathways. METHODS: We conducted a preplanned mediation analysis using individual participant data from a dataset of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared focused psychosocial support interventions versus control conditions for children living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) affected by humanitarian crises. Based on an ecological resilience framework, we hypothesized that (a) coping, (b) hope, (c) social support, and (d) functional impairment mediate the relationship between intervention and outcome PTSD symptoms. A systematic search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PubMed, PyscARTICLES, Web of Science, and the main local LMICs databases was conducted up to August 2018. The hypotheses were tested by using individual participant data obtained from study authors of all the studies included in the systematic review. RESULTS: We included 3,143 children from 11 studies (100% of data from included studies), of which 1,877 from six studies contributed to the mediation analysis. Functional impairment was the strongest mediator for focused psychosocial interventions on PTSD (mediation coefficient -0.087, standard error 0.040). The estimated proportion of effect mediated by functional impairment, and adjusted for confounders, was 31%. CONCLUSIONS: Findings did not support the proposed mediation hypotheses for coping, hope, and social support. The mediation through functional impairment may represent unmeasured proxy measures or point to a broader mechanism that impacts self-efficacy and agency.

Association of traumatic events with levels of psychological distress and depressive symptoms in male asylum seekers and refugees resettled in Italy.

BACKGROUND: In recent years there has been a progressive rise in the number of asylum seekers and refugees displaced from their country of origin, with significant social, economic, public health and mental health implications. The aim of this study is to (1) describe the level of psychological distress and frequency of psychiatric disorders in a sample of male asylum seekers and refugees across different ethnic groups resettled in Italy; (2) establish whether the number of traumatic events experienced before, during and after the migration process is associated with level of psychological distress and depressive symptoms. METHODS: In two large Italian catchment areas, over a period of 1 year a consecutive series of male asylum seekers and refugees, aged 18 or above and included in the Italian protection system, were screened for psychological distress and psychiatric disorders using validated questionnaires. RESULTS: During the study period, 252 male asylum seekers or refugees were recruited. More than one-third of the participants (34.5%) showed clinically relevant psychological distress, and one-fourth (22.2%), met the criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis, mainly Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depressive disorders. The number of traumatic events turned out to be a risk factor for both clinically relevant psychological distress and depressive disorders. Receiving good social support emerged as a protective factor, while migrants with unclear status were at higher risk of psychological distress than those holding or awaiting a permission. DISCUSSION: In an unselected sample of male asylum seekers and refugees, after around 1 year of resettlement in Italy, the frequency of psychological distress and psychiatric disorders was substantial and clinically relevant. The association between traumatic events, especially post-migration problems, and mental health conditions suggests the need of developing services to assist refugees and asylum seekers to address the multi-faceted problems they experience, such as social support in host country, legal problems concerning permit status and asylum procedure, and family reunification, as well as addressing trauma and mental health issues.

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.

An overview of systematic reviews on mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment of common mental disorders for refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons.

BACKGROUND: Migrants who have been forced to leave their home, such as refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons (IDP), are likely to experience stressors which may lead to mental health problems. The efficacy of interventions for mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment may differ in this population. OBJECTIVES: With this overview of systematic reviews, we will map the characteristics and methodological quality of existing systematic reviews and registered systematic review protocols on the promotion of mental health and prevention and treatment of common mental disorders among refugees, asylum seekers, and IDPs. The findings from this overview will be used to prioritise and inform future Cochrane reviews on the mental health of involuntary migrants. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1945 onwards), Ovid Embase (1974 onwards), Ovid PsycINFO, ProQuest PTSDpubs, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, NIHR Journals Library, CRD databases (archived), DoPHER, Epistemonikos, Health Evidence, 3ie International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, and PROSPERO, to identify systematic reviews of mental health interventions for involuntary migrants. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches. We included systematic reviews or protocols for systematic reviews of interventions aimed at refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons. Interventions must have been aimed at mental health promotion (for example, classroom-based well-being interventions for children), prevention of mental health problems (for example, trauma-focussed Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder), or treatment of common mental disorders and symptoms (for example, narrative exposure therapy to treat symptoms of trauma). After screening abstracts and full-text manuscripts in duplicate, we extracted data on the characteristics of the reviews, the interventions examined in reviews, and the number of primary studies included in each review. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2. MAIN RESULTS: The overview includes 23 systematic reviews and 15 registered systematic review protocols. Of the 23 published systematic reviews, meta-analyses were conducted in eight reviews. It was more common for the search strategy or inclusion criteria of the reviews to state that studies involving refugees were eligible for inclusion (23/23), than for asylum seekers (14/23) or IDPs (7/23) to be explicitly mentioned. In most reviews, study eligiblity was either not restricted by participant age (9/23), or restricted to adults (10/23). Reviews commonly reported on studies of diagnosis or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or trauma (11/23) and were less likely to report on depression or anxiety (6/23). In 15 reviews the intervention of interest was focused on/ specific to psychological therapy. Across all 23 reviews, the interventions most commonly identified from primary studies were general Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Narrative Exposure Therapy, and a range of different integrative and interpersonal therapies. Even though many reviews included studies of participants without a diagnosis of a mental health problem, they often assessed mental health treatments and did not usually distinguish between promotion, prevention, and treatment in the review aims. Together the 23 systematic reviews included 336 references, of which 175 were unique primary studies. Limitations to the methodological quality of reviews most commonly related to reporting of selection criteria (21/23), absence of a protocol (19/23), reporting of study design (20/23), search strategy (22/23), and funding sources of primary studies (19/23). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gaps exist in the evidence on mental health interventions for refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons. Most reviews do not specify that internally displaced persons are included in the selection criteria, even though they make up the majority of involuntary migrants worldwide. Reviews specific to mental health promotion and prevention of common mental disorders are missing, and there is more evidence available for adults or mixed populations than for children. The literature is focused on post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma-related symptoms, with less attention for depression and anxiety disorders. Better quality systematic reviews and better report of review design and methods would help those who may use these reviews to inform implementation of mental health interventions.