RESUMEN
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World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews.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.
Asunto(s)
Países en Desarrollo , Salud Mental , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Adulto , Niño , Intervención Psicosocial/métodos , Adaptación Psicológica , Altruismo , Adolescente , Refugiados/psicología , Sesgo , Promoción de la Salud/métodos , Funcionamiento Psicosocial , Femenino , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/terapia , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/psicología , Trastornos Mentales/terapiaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Niño , Masculino , Adolescente , Humanos , Salud Mental , Estudios Transversales , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/epidemiología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/psicología , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Depresión/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trastornos Mentales , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Trastornos Mentales/complicaciones , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Pandemias/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Metaanálisis como AsuntoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Países en Desarrollo , Trastornos Mentales , Humanos , Ansiedad/diagnóstico , Promoción de la Salud , Trastornos Mentales/prevención & control , Salud Mental , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
RATIONALE: Environmental enrichment (EE) is a non-pharmacological approach that has been shown to be effective in reducing food-taking in rats. Studies in human volunteers are still in their infancy, given the difficulty to translate the complexity of EE in clinical practice. Virtual reality (VR) is a promising methodological approach, but no study has yet applied it to model and test EE in humans. OBJECTIVES: The present study is the first to assess the effects of virtual EE on craving for palatable food. METHODS: Eighty-one healthy volunteers (43 women) were divided into three groups: (i) exposure to a virtual EE (VR-EE), (ii) exposure to a virtual neutral environment (VR-NoEE), and (iii) without exposure to VR (No VR). Craving for palatable food at basal level and evoked by neutral and palatable food images was assessed before and after the VR simulation. Behavior during VR exposure and subjective measures related to the experience were also collected. RESULTS: VR-EE group showed a significantly greater decrease in pre-post craving difference compared to No VR for all assessments and at basal level compared to VR-NoEE. Interestingly, an inverse correlation between craving and deambulation in the VR simulation emerged in VR-EE group only. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the feasibility of exposing human subjects to an EE as a virtual simulation. Virtual EE induced effects on basal craving for food that suggest the potential for further improvements of the protocol to extend its efficacy to palatable food cues.
Asunto(s)
Ansia , Realidad Virtual , Humanos , Femenino , Animales , Ratas , Voluntarios Sanos , Alimentos , Simulación por Computador , Señales (Psicología)RESUMEN
Migrant mental health is a pressing public health issue with wide-ranging implications. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in this population to assess the effects of psychosocial interventions. However, the available evidence is characterized by controversy and fragmentation, with studies focusing on different migrant populations, interventions, outcomes, delivery modalities and settings. Aiming to promote systematic reviews of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in different migrant groups, we have developed a living database of existing RCTs. The development of the database provides an opportunity to map the existing RCT evidence in this population. A total of 135 studies involving 24,859 participants were included in the living database. The distribution of studies by year of publication aligns with the increasing global migrant population in recent years. Most studies focus primarily on adult participants, with a limited representation of children and adolescents, and a prevalence of female participants, which is consistent with epidemiological data, except for older adults, who are underrepresented in research. Studies predominantly focus on refugees and asylum seekers, likely due to their elevated risk of mental health issues, despite the substantial presence of economic migrants worldwide. While studies mainly involve migrants from the Middle East and East Asia, epidemiological data suggest a broader geographic representation, with migrants coming from Eastern Europe, Latin America and South Asia. The present descriptive analysis of RCTs on mental health and psychosocial interventions for migrant populations provides valuable insights into the existing research landscape. It should be used to inform future research efforts, ensuring that studies are more representative of the global migrant population and more responsive to the mental health needs of migrants in different contexts.
RESUMEN
Psychosocial interventions play a key role in addressing mental health and substance use needs for children and adolescents living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While research efforts have primarily focused on their effectiveness, implementation outcomes also require examining. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies (PROSPERO: CRD42022335997) to synthesize the literature on implementation outcomes for psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents in LMICs. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, and Global Health through April 2023. Data were extracted and quality appraised through the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) independently by two reviewers. A total of 13,380 records were screened, and 87 studies met inclusion criteria. Feasibility was the most reported implementation outcome (69, 79%), followed by acceptability (60, 69%), and fidelity (32, 37%). Appropriateness was assessed in 11 studies (13%), implementation costs in 10 (11%), and sustainability in one (1%). None of the included studies reported on penetration or adoption. Despite a growing body of evidence for implementation research in child and adolescent global mental health, most research focused on earlier-stage implementation outcomes, assessing them in research-controlled settings. To overcome this, future efforts should focus on assessing interventions in routine care, assessing later-stage implementation outcomes through standardized tools.
Asunto(s)
Países en Desarrollo , Intervención Psicosocial , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Adolescente , Niño , Humanos , Salud Mental , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/terapia , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Physical activity (PA) interventions are part of many interdisciplinary programs for the management of children and adolescents with or without physical or psychological conditions or disabilities. Aiming to summarize the available evidence, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of PA interventions that included psychosocial outcomes in populations of children and adolescents. METHOD: Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Medline, SPORTDiscus, and PsychInfo from January 1, 2010, to May 6, 2022. Meta-analyses of randomized and quasi-randomized studies investigating the efficacy of PA interventions for psychosocial outcomes in children and adolescents were included. Summary effects were recalculated using 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 greater than expected due to chance. On the basis of these calculations, strength of associations was assessed using quantitative umbrella review criteria, and credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. This study is registered with the Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/ap8qu. RESULTS: A total of 112 studies from 18 meta-analyses generating 12 new meta-analyses comprising 21,232 children and adolescents in population groups including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, cancer, cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory diseases, depression, neuromotor impairment, and obesity and in general populations were included. PA interventions were efficacious in reducing psychological symptoms in all meta-analyses across the different population groups using random-effects models. However, umbrella review criteria suggested a weak strength of association for this outcome, and GRADE credibility of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For psychological well-being, 3 out of 5 meta-analyses identified significant effects, but the strength of these associations was weak, and GRADE credibility of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Similarly, for social outcomes, meta-analyses reported a significant summary effect, but the strength of association was weak, and GRADE credibility of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For self-esteem, one meta-analysis in children with obesity failed to show any effect. CONCLUSION: Even though existing meta-analyses suggested a beneficial effect of PA interventions on psychosocial outcomes across different population groups, the strength of associations was weak, and the credibility of evidence was variable depending on the target population, outcome, and condition or disability. Randomized studies of PA interventions in children and adolescents with and without different physical and psychological conditions or disabilities should always include psychosocial outcomes as an important dimension of social and mental health. STUDY PREREGISTRATION INFORMATION: Prenatal Maternal Infection and Adverse Neurodevelopment: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach to Downstream Environmental Hits; https://osf.io/; ap8qu.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Mentales , Niño , Adolescente , Humanos , Obesidad , Ejercicio Físico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
AIM: to assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions delivered through task-sharing approaches for preventing perinatal common mental disorders among women in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following a prespecified protocol registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/qt4y3). We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through June 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We included 23 studies with 24,442 participants. At post-intervention, task-shared psychosocial interventions, were effective in preventing the development of mental disorders in general (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.35, 0.91]), and specifically depression (RR 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.75]), but not anxiety disorders (RR 0.46, 95% CI [0.06, 3.33]). Similarly, psychosocial interventions reduced psychological distress (SMD -1.32, 95% CI [-2.28, -0.35]), and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.50, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.16]), and increased parenting self-efficacy (SMD -0.76, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.38]) and social support (SMD -0.72, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.22]). No effect was detected for anxiety symptoms at post-intervention. At follow-up the beneficial effects of interventions progressively decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial interventions delivered through the task-sharing modality are effective in preventing perinatal common mental disorders and fostering positive mental health among women in low- and middle-income countries. However, our findings are tentative, due to the low number of preventative intervention strategies considering outcomes as the incidence of mental disorders, especially in the long-term. This evidence supports calls to implement and scale up psychosocial prevention interventions for perinatal common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Mentales , Intervención Psicosocial , Embarazo , Humanos , Femenino , Países en Desarrollo , Trastornos Mentales/prevención & control , Ansiedad/diagnóstico , Trastornos de AnsiedadRESUMEN
Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.