Mapping the evidence on psychosocial interventions for migrant populations: Descriptive analysis of a living database of randomized studies.

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.

Views and experiences of migrants and stakeholders involved in social and health care for migrants in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major and potentially long-lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing across populations worldwide. However, these impacts were not felt equally, leading to an exacerbation of health inequalities, especially affecting vulnerable populations such as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Aiming to inform the adaptation and implementation of psychological intervention programmes, the present study investigated priority mental health needs in this population group. METHODS: Participants were adult asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (ARMs) and stakeholders with experience in the field of migration living in Verona, Italy, and fluent in Italian and English. A two-stage process was carried out to examine their needs using qualitative methods including free listing interviews and focus group discussions, according to Module One of the DIME (Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation) manual. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analyses approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants (12 stakeholders, 7 ARMs) completed the free listing interviews and 20 participants (12 stakeholders and 8 ARMs) attended focus group discussions. Salient problems and functions that emerged during free listing interviews were discussed during the focus group discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ARMs struggled with many everyday living difficulties in their resettlement country due to social and economic issues, revealing a strong influence of contextual factors in determining mental health. Both ARMs and stakeholders highlighted a mismatch between needs, expectations and interventions as factors that may hamper proper implementation of health and social programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings could help in the adaptation and implementation of psychological interventions targeting the needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants aiming to find a match between needs, expectations, and the corresponding interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number 2021-UNVRCLE-0106707, February 11 2021.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: Study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial.

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.

Risk factors for mental disorder development in asylum seekers and refugees resettled in Western Europe and Turkey: Participant-level analysis of two large prevention studies.

BACKGROUND: In asylum seekers and refugees, the frequency of mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, is higher than the general population, but there is a lack of data on risk factors for the development of mental disorders in this population. AIM: This study investigated the risk factors for mental disorder development in a large group of asylum seekers and refugees resettled in high- and middle-income settings. METHODS: Participant-level data from two randomized prevention studies involving asylum seekers and refugees resettled in Western European countries and in Turkey were pooled. The two studies randomized participants with psychological distress, but without a diagnosis of mental disorder, to the Self-Help Plus psychological intervention or enhanced care as usual. At baseline, exposure to potentially traumatic events was measured using the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire-part I, while psychological distress and depressive symptoms were assessed with the General Health Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire. After 3 and 6 months of follow-up, the proportion of participants who developed a mental disorder was calculated using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. RESULTS: A total of 1,101 participants were included in the analysis. At 3- and 6-month follow-up the observed frequency of mental disorders was 13.51% (115/851) and 24.30% (207/852), respectively, while the frequency estimates after missing data imputation were 13.95% and 23.78%, respectively. After controlling for confounders, logistic regression analysis showed that participants with a lower education level (p = .034), a shorter duration of journey (p = .057) and arriving from countries with war-related contexts (p = .017), were more at risk of developing mental disorders. Psychological distress (p = .004), depression (p = .001) and exposure to potentially traumatic events (p = .020) were predictors of mental disorder development. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several risk factors for the development of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees, some of which may be the target of risk reduction policies. The identification of asylum seekers and refugees at increased risk of mental disorders should guide the implementation of focused preventative psychological interventions.

Trajectories of psychosocial symptoms and wellbeing in asylum seekers and refugees exposed to traumatic events and resettled in Western Europe, Turkey, and Uganda.

Background: Longitudinal studies examining mental health trajectories in refugees and asylum seekers are scarce. Objectives: To investigate trajectories of psychological symptoms and wellbeing in refugees and asylum seekers, and identify factors associated with these trajectories. Method: 912 asylum seekers and refugees from the control arm of three trials in Europe (n = 229), Turkey (n = 320), and Uganda (n = 363) were included. We described trajectories of psychological symptoms and wellbeing, and used trauma exposure, age, marital status, education, and individual trial as predictors. Then, we assessed the bidirectional interactions between wellbeing and psychological symptoms, and the effect of each predictor on each outcome controlling for baseline values. Results: Symptom improvement was identified in all trials, and for wellbeing in 64.7% of participants in Europe and Turkey, versus 31.5% in Uganda. In Europe and Turkey domestic violence predicted increased symptoms at post-intervention (ß = 1.36, 95% CI 0.17-2.56), whilst murder of family members at 6-month follow-up (ß = 1.23, 95% CI 0.27-2.19). Lower wellbeing was predicted by murder of family member (ß = -1.69, 95% CI -3.06 to -0.32), having been kidnapped (ß = -1.67, 95% CI -3.19 to -0.15), close to death (ß = -1.38, 95% CI -2.70 to -0.06), and being in the host country ≥2 years (ß = -1.60, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.14). In Uganda at post-intervention, having been kidnapped predicted increased symptoms (ß = 2.11, 95% CI 0.58-3.65), and lack of shelter (ß = -2.51, 95% CI -4.44 to -0.58) and domestic violence predicted lower wellbeing (ß = -1.36, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.05). Conclusion: Many participants adapt to adversity, but contextual factors play a critical role in determining mental health trajectories.

Antecedentes: Estudios longitudinales que examinan las trayectorias de la salud mental en los refugiados y solicitantes de asilo son escasos.Objetivos: Investigar las trayectorias de los síntomas psicológicos y el bienestar en refugiados y solicitantes de asilo, e identificar factores asociados a estas trayectorias.Métodos: Se incluyeron 912 solicitantes de asilos y refugiados del brazo control de tres ensayos clínicos en Europa (n = 229), Turquía (n = 320) y Uganda (n = 363). Describimos las trayectorias psicológicas de los síntomas y el bienestar, y utilizamos la exposición traumática, la edad, el estado marital, la educación y el juicio individual como predictores. Después, evaluamos las interacciones bidireccionales entre el bienestar y los síntomas psicológicos, y el efecto de cada uno de los predictores en cada resultado controlando por los valores iniciales.Resultados: Se identificó una mejoría en los síntomas en todos los ensayos, y del bienestar en el 64.7% de los participantes en Europa y Turquía, versus el 31.5% en Uganda. En Europa y en Turquía, la violencia doméstica predijo el incremento de síntomas de después de la intervención (ß = 1.36, 95% CI 0.17 a 2.56), mientras que el homicidio de algún miembro familiar a los 6 meses de seguimiento (ß = 1.23, 95% CI 0.27 a 2.19). Un menor bienestar fue predicho por el homicidio de algún miembro de la familia (ß = −1.69, 95% CI −3.06 a −0.32), haber sido secuestrado (ß = −1.67, 95% CI −3.19 a −0.15), haber estado próximo a la muerte (ß = −1.38, 95% CI −2.70 a −0.06), y estar en el país de acogida ≥2 años (ß = −1.60, 95% CI −3.05 a −0.14). En Uganda, después de la intervención, haber sido secuestrado predijo un aumento de los síntomas (ß =2.11, 95% CI 0.58 a 3.65), y la falta de refugio (ß = −2.51, 95% CI −4.44 a −0.58) y la violencia doméstica predijo un menor bienestar (ß = −1.36, 95% CI −2.67 a −0.05).Conclusión: Muchos participantes se adaptan a la adversidad, pero los factores contextuales juegan un papel crítico en determinar las trayectorias de la salud mental.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs. Materials and methods: Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health). Results: We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels. Conclusions: In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Cost-effectiveness of the Self-Help Plus Intervention for Adult Syrian Refugees Hosted in Turkey.

Importance: The cost-effectiveness of the Self-Help Plus (SH+) program, a group-based, guided, self-help psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization for people affected by adversity, is unclear. Objective: To investigate the cost-utility of providing the SH+ intervention combined with enhanced usual care vs enhanced usual care alone for Syrian refugees or asylum seekers hosted in Turkey. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation was performed as a prespecified part of an assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted between October 1, 2018, and November 30, 2019, with 6-month follow-up. A total of 627 adults with psychological distress but no diagnosed psychiatric disorder were randomly assigned to the intervention group or the enhanced usual care group. Interventions: The SH+ program was a 5-session (2 hours each), group-based, stress management course in which participants learned self-help skills for managing stress by listening to audio sessions. The SH+ sessions were facilitated by briefly trained, nonspecialist individuals, and an illustrated book was provided to group members. Th intervention group received the SH+ intervention plus enhanced usual care; the control group received only enhanced usual care from the local health care system. Enhanced usual care included access to free health care services provided by primary and secondary institutions plus details on nongovernmental organizations and freely available mental health services, social services, and community networks for people under temporary protection of Turkey and refugees. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the Turkish health care system. An intention-to-treat analysis was used including all participants who were randomized and for whom baseline data on costs and QALYs were available. Data were analyzed September 30, 2020, to July 30, 2021. Results: Of 627 participants (mean [SD] age, 31.3 [9.0] years; 393 [62.9%] women), 313 were included in the analysis for the SH+ group and 314 in the analysis for the enhanced usual care group. An incremental cost-utility ratio estimate of T£6068 ($1147) per QALY gained was found when the SH+ intervention was provided to groups of 10 Syrian refugees. At a willingness to pay per QALY gained of T£14 831 ($2802), the SH+ intervention had a 97.5% chance of being cost-effective compared with enhanced usual care alone. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation suggests that implementation of the SH+ intervention compared with enhanced usual care alone for adult Syrian refugees or asylum seekers hosted in Turkey is cost-effective from the perspective of the Turkish health care system when both international and country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds were applied.

Effectiveness of a WHO self-help psychological intervention for preventing mental disorders among Syrian refugees in Turkey: a randomized controlled trial.

Refugees are at high risk of developing mental disorders. There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that psychological interventions can prevent the onset of mental disorders in this group. We assessed the effectiveness of a self-help psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, called Self-Help Plus, in preventing the development of mental disorders among Syrian refugees experiencing psychological distress in Turkey. A two-arm, assessor-masked RCT was conducted in two Turkish areas. Eligible participants were adult Syrian refugees experiencing psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire ≥3), but without a diagnosis of mental disorder. They were randomly assigned either to the Self-Help Plus arm (consisting of Self-Help Plus combined with Enhanced Care as Usual, ECAU) or to ECAU only in a 1:1 ratio. Self-Help Plus was delivered in a group format by two facilitators over five sessions. The primary outcome measure was the presence of any mental disorder assessed by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview at six-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the presence of mental disorders at post-intervention, and psychological distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, personally identified psychological outcomes, functional impairment, subjective well-being, and quality of life at post-intervention and six-month follow-up. Between October 1, 2018 and November 30, 2019, 1,186 refugees were assessed for inclusion. Five hundred forty-four people were ineligible, and 642 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either Self-Help Plus (N=322) or ECAU (N=320). Self-Help Plus participants were significantly less likely to have any mental disorders at six-month follow-up compared to the ECAU group (21.69% vs. 40.73%; Cramer's V = 0.205, p<0.001, risk ratio: 0.533, 95% CI: 0.408-0.696). Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that Self-Help Plus was not effective immediately post-intervention, but was associated with beneficial effects at six-month follow-up in terms of symptoms of depression, personally identified psychological outcomes, and quality of life. This is the first prevention RCT ever conducted among refugees experiencing psychological distress but without a mental disorder. Self-Help Plus was found to be an effective strategy for preventing the onset of mental disorders. Based on these findings, this low-intensity self-help psychological intervention could be scaled up as a public health strategy to prevent mental disorders in refugee populations exposed to ongoing adversities.

How does context influence the delivery of mental health interventions for asylum seekers and refugees in low- and middle-income countries? A qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) host the majority of the world's refugees. Evidence suggests that refugees and asylum seekers have high mental health needs compared to the host country population. However, they face many social, economic and culture barriers to receiving mental health care and benefitting from mental health interventions. This paper examines how these contextual factors affect the implementation of mental health interventions for refugees and asylum seekers in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative systematic review searching 11 databases and 24 relevant government and non-governmental organisation (NGO) websites. We spoke with academic experts and NGO professionals for recommendations, and conducted forwards and backwards citation tracking. RESULTS: From 2055 records in abstract and title screening, and then 99 in full-text screening, 18 eligible studies were identified. Qualitative thematic synthesis was conducted on eligible papers. Three main thematic clusters were identified around: (1) support during a time of pressure and insecurity, and the need for intervention flexibility through facilitator and participant autonomy; (2) different cultural conceptions of mental health, and how interventions negotiated these differences; and (3) the importance of facilitator skills, knowledge, characteristics and relationships to intervention implementation. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that intervention coordinators and developers should continue to: (1) think broadly about the range of social influences on mental health, addressing structural issues where possible; (2) offer flexibility with intervention style, content and timings; and (3) encourage building research capacity in LMICs while acknowledging pre-existing mental health knowledge and practice.

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.

A network meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for refugees and asylum seekers with PTSD.

INTRODUCTION: Refugees and asylum seekers are vulnerable to common mental disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Using a network meta-analysis (NMA) approach, the present systematic review compared and ranked psychosocial interventions for the treatment of PTSD in adult refugees and asylum seekers. METHODS: Randomised studies of psychosocial interventions for adult refugees and asylum seekers with PTSD were systematically identified. PTSD symptoms at postintervention was the primary outcome. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ORs were pooled using pairwise and NMA. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed through the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis application. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 2308 participants were included. Sixteen studies were conducted in high-income countries, and seven in low-income or middle-income countries. Most studies were at low risk of bias according to the Cochrane RoB tool. NMA on PTSD symptoms showed that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (SMD=-1.41; 95% CI -2.43 to -0.38) and eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) (SMD=-1.30; 95% CI -2.40 to -0.20) were significantly more effective than waitlist (WL). CBT was also associated with a higher decrease in PTSD symptoms than treatment as usual (TAU) (SMD -1.51; 95% CI -2.67 to -0.36). For all other interventions, the difference with WL and TAU was not significant. CBT and EMDR ranked best according to the mean surface under the cumulative ranking. Regarding acceptability, no intervention had less dropouts than inactive interventions. CONCLUSION: CBT and EMDR appeared to have the greatest effects in reducing PTSD symptoms in asylum seekers and refugees. This evidence should be considered in guidelines and implementation packages to facilitate dissemination and uptake in refugee settings.

Maintenance Treatment With Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for People With Nonaffective Psychoses: A Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared relapse prevention and acceptability of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in the maintenance treatment of adults with nonaffective psychoses. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and online registers for randomized controlled trials published until June 2020. Relative risks and standardized mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were relapse rate and all-cause discontinuation ("acceptability"). The quality of included studies was rated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of pooled estimates was measured with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RESULTS: Of 86 eligible trials, 78 (N=11,505) were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding relapse prevention, most of the 12 LAIs included outperformed placebo. The largest point estimates and best rankings of LAIs compared with placebo were found for paliperidone (3-month formulation) and aripiprazole. Moderate to high GRADE certainty for superior relapse prevention compared with placebo was also found for (in descending ranking order) risperidone, pipothiazine, olanzapine, and paliperidone (1-month formulation). In head-to-head comparisons of LAIs, only haloperidol was inferior to aripiprazole, fluphenazine, and paliperidone. For acceptability, most LAIs outperformed placebo, with moderate to high GRADE certainty for (in descending ranking order) zuclopenthixol, aripiprazole, paliperidone (3-month formulation), olanzapine, flupenthixol, fluphenazine, and paliperidone (1-month formulation). In head-to-head comparisons, only LAI aripiprazole had superior acceptability to other LAIs (bromperidol, fluphenazine, paliperidone [1-month formulation], pipothiazine, and risperidone). CONCLUSIONS: LAI formulations of paliperidone (3-month formulation), aripiprazole, olanzapine, and paliperidone (1-month formulation) showed the highest effect sizes and certainty of evidence for both relapse prevention and acceptability. Results from this network meta-analysis should inform frontline clinicians and guidelines.

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.

Tolerability and efficacy of vortioxetine versus SSRIs in elderly with major depression. Study protocol of the VESPA study: a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority, randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression is a highly prevalent condition in the elderly, with a vast impact on quality of life, life expectancy, and medical outcomes. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed agents in this condition and, although generally safe, tolerability issues cannot be overlooked. Vortioxetine is an antidepressant with a novel mechanism of action. Based on studies to date, it may have a promising tolerability profile in the elderly, as it does not adversely affect psychomotor or cognitive performance and does not alter cardiovascular and endocrine parameters. The present study aims to assess the tolerability profile of vortioxetine in comparison with the SSRIs considered as a single group in elderly participants with depression. The rate of participants withdrawing from treatment due to adverse events after 6 months of follow up will be the primary outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority, randomized trial funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA - Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco). Thirteen Italian Community Psychiatric Services will consecutively enrol elderly participants suffering from an episode of major depression over a period of 12 months. Participants will be assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months of follow up. At each time point, the following validated rating scales will be administered: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC), EuroQual 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Blessed Test (SBT), and Charlson Age-Comorbidity Index (CACI). Outcome assessors and the statistician will be masked to treatment allocation. A total of 358 participants (179 in each group) will be enrolled. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will fully adhere to the ICH E6 Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Participants' data will be managed and safeguarded according to the European Data Protection Regulation 2016/679. An external Ethical Advisory Board will help guarantee high ethical standards. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03779789 , Registered on 19 December 2018. Submitted on 19 December. EudraCT number: 2018-001444-66. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.5; 09/06/2018. Recruitment started In February 2019 and it is ongoing. It is expected to end approximately on 30 September 2021.

Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for mental health outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Mental health conditions are leading causes of disability worldwide. Psychosocial interventions for these conditions might have a key role in their treatment, although applicability of findings to poor-resource settings might be a challenge. We aimed to evaluate the strength and credibility of evidence generated in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for various mental health outcomes. METHODS: We did an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised studies done in LMICs. Literature searches were done in Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos from Jan 1, 2010, until May 31, 2019. Systematic reviews of randomised studies investigating the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for mental health conditions in LMICs were included. Systematic reviews of promotion, prevention, and protection interventions were excluded, because the focus was on treatment interventions only. Information on first author, year of publication, outcomes, number of included studies, and reported summary meta-analytic estimates was extracted from included meta-analyses. 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 assessed using quantitative umbrella review criteria, and credibility of evidence using the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019135711. FINDINGS: 123 primary studies from ten systematic reviews were included. The evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in adults with depression in humanitarian settings (standardised mean difference 0·87, 95% CI 0·67-1·07; highly suggestive association, GRADE: moderate) and in adults with common mental disorders (0·49, 0·36-0·62; highly suggestive association, GRADE: moderate) was supported by the most robust evidence. Highly suggestive strength of association was found for psychosocial interventions in adults with schizophrenia for functional outcomes, in adults with depression, and in adults with post-traumatic stress disorder in humanitarian settings. In children in humanitarian settings, and in children with disruptive behaviour, psychosocial interventions were supported by suggestive evidence of efficacy. INTERPRETATION: A relatively large amount of evidence suggests the benefit of psychosocial interventions on various mental health outcomes in LMICs. However, strength of associations and credibility of evidence were quite variable, depending on the target mental health condition, type of population and setting, and outcome of interest. This varied evidence should be considered in the development of clinical, policy, and implementation programmes in LMICs and should prompt further studies to improve the strength and credibility of the evidence base. FUNDING: University of Verona.

Beyond pain: can antidepressants improve depressive symptoms and quality of life in patients with neuropathic pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Neuropathic pain can be a predictor of severe emotional distress, up to full-blown depressive states. In these patients, it is important to move beyond the sole treatment of pain, to recognize depressive symptoms, and to ultimately improve the quality of life. We systematically searched for published and unpublished clinical trials assessing the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants vs placebo on depression, anxiety and quality of life in patients with neuropathic pain, and pooled data in a meta-analysis. A total of 37 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and 32 provided data for meta-analysis. Antidepressants were more effective than placebo in improving depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference -0.11; 95% confidence interval -0.20 to -0.02), although the magnitude of effect was small, with a number needed to treat of 24. No significant difference emerged between antidepressants and placebo in reducing anxiety. Quality of life seemed improved in patients on antidepressants, as did pain. Acceptability and tolerability were higher in patients on placebo. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis specifically focusing on the effect of antidepressants on psychiatric symptoms and quality of life in patients with neuropathic pain. Our findings suggest that despite their potential benefit in patients with neuropathic pain, antidepressants should be prescribed with particular care because they might be less tolerable in such a fragile population. However, our findings warrant further research to explore how a correct use of antidepressants can help patients to cope with the consequences of neuropathic pain on their psychosocial health and quality of life.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH+) for preventing mental disorders in refugees and asylum seekers in Europe and Turkey: study protocols for two randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes two randomised controlled trials that will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH+), a group self-help intervention developed by the WHO to reduce distress. In these trials SH+ is being tested as a preventative intervention to lower the incidence of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees with psychological distress resettled in Europe and Turkey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two prospective, multicentre, randomised, rater-blinded, parallel-group studies will follow participants over a period of 12 months. One trial will be conducted in Europe and one in Turkey. In each trial, 600 asylum seekers and refugees screening positive on the General Health Questionnaire (≥3), but without a formal diagnosis of any mental disorders according to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, will be randomly allocated to SH+or to enhanced treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome will be a lower incidence of mental disorders at 6 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include the evaluation of psychological symptoms, functioning, well-being, treatment acceptability and indicators of intervention cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The two trials received ethical clearance from the local Ethics Committees of the participating sites (seven sites), as well as from the WHO Ethics Committee. All participants will provide informed consent before screening and before study inclusion (a two-step procedure). The results of the trials will be disseminated in agreement with a dissemination plan that includes publication(s) in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant national and international conferences and meetings. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03571347, NCT03587896.

Efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants in patients with ischemic heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants in adults with ischemic heart disease (IHD). We gathered all available randomized-controlled trials comparing antidepressants versus placebo or other antidepressants in adults with IHD. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms at the study endpoint, as measured by validated rating scales. We pooled data in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The confidence in the estimates (or certainty of the evidence) was assessed using the GRADE approach. Antidepressants appeared to be more effective than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms (11 comparisons; 1685 participants; standardized mean difference -0.71, 95% confidence interval: -1.11 to -0.30; GRADE quality: moderate). This result was confirmed in the subgroup of serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors, and for the single drugs sertraline and citalopram, with a greater magnitude of effect and a higher quality of evidence for the former. No differences between antidepressants and placebo emerged in terms of acceptability and tolerability, quality of life, mortality, and cardiovascular events. Only two small head-to-head studies were identified. Sertraline is a reasonable first-line choice in patients with IHD and depression, whereas the role of citalopram as the first-line agent should be reconsidered.

Factors associated with first- versus second-generation long-acting antipsychotics prescribed under ordinary clinical practice in Italy.

BACKGROUND: For many years, long-acting intramuscular (LAI) antipsychotics have been prescribed predominantly to chronic and severe patients, as a last resort when other treatments failed. Recently, a broader and earlier use of LAIs, particularly second-generation LAIs, has been emphasized. To date, few studies attempted to frame how this change in prescribing took place in real-world practice. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the clinical features of patients prescribed with LAIs, and to explore possible prescribing differences between first- and second-generations LAIs under ordinary clinical practice in Italy. METHODS: The STAR Network "Depot" Study is an observational, longitudinal, multicenter study involving 35 centers in Italy. In the cross-sectional phase, patients prescribed with LAIs were consecutively recruited and assessed over a period of 12 months. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed. RESULTS: Of the 451 recruited patients, 61% were males. The level of social and working functioning was heterogeneous, as was the severity of disease. Seventy-two per cent of the patients had a diagnosis of the schizophrenia spectrum. Seventy per cent were prescribed with second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) LAIs (mostly paliperidone, aripiprazole and risperidone). Compared to first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) LAIs, patients prescribed with SGA LAIs were more often younger; employed; with a diagnosis of the schizophrenia spectrum or bipolar disorder; with higher levels of affective symptoms; with fewer LAI prescriptions in the past. DISCUSSION: LAIs' prescribing practices appear to be more flexible as compared to the past, although this change is mostly restricted to SGA LAIs.

Antidepressants versus placebo for panic disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder is characterised by repeated, unexpected panic attacks, which represent a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset, reaches a peak within 10 minutes, and in which at least four of 13 characteristic symptoms are experienced, including racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, stomach churning, faintness and breathlessness. It is common in the general population with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions. Amongst pharmacological agents, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the British Association for Psychopharmacology consider antidepressants, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), as the first-line treatment for panic disorder, due to their more favourable adverse effect profile over monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Several classes of antidepressants have been studied and compared, but it is still unclear which antidepressants have a more or less favourable profile in terms of effectiveness and acceptability in the treatment of this condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antidepressants for panic disorder in adults, specifically:1. to determine the efficacy of antidepressants in alleviating symptoms of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in comparison to placebo;2. to review the acceptability of antidepressants in panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in comparison with placebo; and3. to investigate the adverse effects of antidepressants in panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, including the general prevalence of adverse effects, compared to placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders' (CCMD) Specialised Register, and CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to May 2017. We handsearched reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: All double-blind, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) allocating adults with panic disorder to antidepressants or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. We entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-check procedure. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and settings. Primary outcomes included failure to respond, measured by a range of response scales, and treatment acceptability, measured by total number of dropouts for any reason. Secondary outcomes included failure to remit, panic symptom scales, frequency of panic attacks, agoraphobia, general anxiety, depression, social functioning, quality of life and patient satisfaction, measured by various scales as defined in individual studies. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one unique RCTs including 9377 participants overall, of whom we included 8252 in the 49 placebo-controlled arms of interest (antidepressant as monotherapy and placebo alone) in this review. The majority of studies were of moderate to low quality due to inconsistency, imprecision and unclear risk of selection and performance bias.We found low-quality evidence that revealed a benefit for antidepressants as a group in comparison with placebo in terms of efficacy measured as failure to respond (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.79; participants = 6500; studies = 30). The magnitude of effect corresponds to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 7 (95% CI 6 to 9): that means seven people would need to be treated with antidepressants in order for one to benefit. We observed the same finding when classes of antidepressants were compared with placebo.Moderate-quality evidence suggested a benefit for antidepressants compared to placebo when looking at number of dropouts due to any cause (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; participants = 7850; studies = 30). The magnitude of effect corresponds to a NNTB of 27 (95% CI 17 to 105); treating 27 people will result in one person fewer dropping out. Considering antidepressant classes, TCAs showed a benefit over placebo, while for SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRIs) we observed no difference.When looking at dropouts due to adverse effects, which can be considered as a measure of tolerability, we found moderate-quality evidence showing that antidepressants as a whole are less well tolerated than placebo. In particular, TCAs and SSRIs produced more dropouts due to adverse effects in comparison with placebo, while the confidence interval for SNRI, noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors (NRI) and other antidepressants were wide and included the possibility of no difference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The identified studies comprehensively address the objectives of the present review.Based on these results, antidepressants may be more effective than placebo in treating panic disorder. Efficacy can be quantified as a NNTB of 7, implying that seven people need to be treated with antidepressants in order for one to benefit. Antidepressants may also have benefit in comparison with placebo in terms of number of dropouts, but a less favourable profile in terms of dropout due to adverse effects. However, the tolerability profile varied between different classes of antidepressants.The choice of whether antidepressants should be prescribed in clinical practice cannot be made on the basis of this review.Limitations in results include funding of some studies by pharmaceutical companies, and only assessing short-term outcomes.Data from the present review will be included in a network meta-analysis of psychopharmacological treatment in panic disorder, which will hopefully provide further useful information on this issue.