Accessibility and Perceived Impact of a Group Psychosocial Intervention for Women in Ecuador: A Comparative Analysis by Migration Status.

There is increasing guidance promoting the provision of mental health and psychosocial support programs to both migrant and host community members in humanitarian settings. However, there is a lack of information on the respective experiences and benefits for migrant and host community members who are participating in mental health and psychosocial support programming. We evaluated a community-based psychosocial program for migrant and host community women, Entre Nosotras, which was implemented with an international non-governmental organization in Ecuador in 2021. Data on participant characteristics and psychosocial wellbeing were collected via pre/post surveys with 143 participants, and qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset (n = 61) of participants. All quantitative analyses were conducted in STATA, and qualitative analysis was done in NVivo. Attendance was higher for host community members. Specifically, 71.4% of host community members attended 4-5 sessions, whereas only 37.4% of migrants attended 4-5 sessions (p = 0.004). Qualitative analysis shows that the intervention was less accessible for migrants due to a variety of structural barriers. However, this analysis also demonstrated that both groups of women felt a greater sense of social connectedness after participating in the program and expressed gratitude for the bonds they formed with other women. Some migrant women described negative experiences with the host community because they felt as though they could not confide in host community women and speak freely in front of them. These results underscore how the migratory context influences the implementation of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) programs. As humanitarian guidelines continue to emphasize the integration of host community members and displaced persons, it is critical to account for how the same intervention may impact these populations differently.

Improving Retention in Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Interventions: An Analysis of Completion Rates across a Multi-Site Trial with Refugee, Migrant, and Host Communities in Latin America.

Research on mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) interventions within refugee and migrant communities has increasingly focused on evaluating implementation, including identifying strategies to promote retention in services. This study examines the relationship between participant characteristics, study setting, and reasons for intervention noncompletion using data from the Entre Nosotras feasibility trial, a community-based MHPSS intervention targeting refugee, migrant, and host community women in Ecuador and Panama that aimed to promote psychosocial wellbeing. Among 225 enrolled women, approximately half completed the intervention, with varying completion rates and reasons for nonattendance across study sites. Participants who were older, had migrated for family reasons, had spent more time in the study community, and were living in Panamá (vs. Ecuador) were more likely to complete the intervention. The findings suggest the need to adapt MHPSS interventions to consider the duration of access to the target population and explore different delivery modalities including the role of technology and cellular devices as reliable or unreliable source for engaging with participants. Engaging younger, newly arrived women is crucial, as they showed lower completion rates. Strategies such as consulting scheduling preferences, providing on-site childcare, and integrating MHPSS interventions with other programs could enhance intervention attendance.

Strengthening self-regulation and reducing poverty to prevent adolescent depression and anxiety: Rationale, approach and methods of the ALIVE interdisciplinary research collaboration in Colombia, Nepal and South Africa.

AIMS: Depression and anxiety are the leading contributors to the global burden of disease among young people, accounting for over a third (34.8%) of years lived with disability. Yet there is limited evidence for interventions that prevent adolescent depression and anxiety in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 90% of adolescents live. This article introduces the 'Improving Adolescent mentaL health by reducing the Impact of poVErty (ALIVE)' study, its conceptual framework, objectives, methods and expected outcomes. The aim of the ALIVE study is to develop and pilot-test an intervention that combines poverty reduction with strengthening self-regulation to prevent depression and anxiety among adolescents living in urban poverty in Colombia, Nepal and South Africa. METHODS: This aim will be achieved by addressing four objectives: (1) develop a conceptual framework that identifies the causal mechanisms linking poverty, self-regulation and depression and anxiety; (2) develop a multi-component selective prevention intervention targeting self-regulation and poverty among adolescents at high risk of developing depression or anxiety; (3) adapt and validate instruments to measure incidence of depression and anxiety, mediators and implementation parameters of the prevention intervention; and (4) undertake a four-arm pilot cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability and cost of the selective prevention intervention in the three study sites. RESULTS: The contributions of this study include the active engagement and participation of adolescents in the research process; a focus on the causal mechanisms of the intervention; building an evidence base for prevention interventions in LMICs; and the use of an interdisciplinary approach. CONCLUSIONS: By developing and evaluating an intervention that addresses multidimensional poverty and self-regulation, ALIVE can make contributions to evidence on the integration of mental health into broader development policy and practice.

Mixed-methods evaluation of a group psychosocial intervention for refugee, migrant and host community women in Ecuador and Panamá: Results from the Entre Nosotras cluster randomized feasibility trial.

Community-based psychosocial interventions are key elements of mental health and psychosocial support; yet evidence regarding their effectiveness and implementation in humanitarian settings is limited. This study aimed to assess the appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility and safety of conducting a cluster randomized trial evaluating two versions of a group psychosocial intervention. Nine community clusters in Ecuador and Panamá were randomized to receive the standard version of the Entre Nosotras intervention, a community-based group psychosocial intervention co-designed with community members, or an enhanced version of Entre Nosotras that integrated a stress management component. In a sample of 225 refugees, migrants and host community women, we found that both versions were safe, acceptable and appropriate. Training lay facilitators to deliver the intervention was feasible. Challenges included slow recruitment related to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, high attrition due to population mobility and other competing priorities, and mixed psychometric performance of psychosocial outcome measures. Although the intervention appeared promising, a definitive cluster randomized comparative effectiveness trial requires further adaptations to the research protocol. Within this pilot study we identified strategies to overcome these challenges that may inform adaptations. This comparative effectiveness design may be a model for identifying effective components of psychosocial interventions.

Evaluating the feasibility of a group psychosocial intervention for migrant and host community women in Ecuador and Panamá: protocol for a multi-site feasibility cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: Community- and strengths-based psychosocial interventions are central to mental health and psychosocial support guidelines, but rigorous evidence regarding the effectiveness of these interventions is limited. The complexity and variability that is inherent to many community-based psychosocial interventions requires innovative strategies in order to facilitate the comparability and synthesis across research studies without compromising the fit and appropriateness of interventions to specific study populations and context. Entre Nosotras is a community-based psychosocial intervention developed for migrant and host community women that is designed to be flexible enough to enable integration of external intervention components and adaptable to diverse study contexts and populations. This protocol describes a study that aims to evaluate the appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility of integrating a standardized stress management intervention into Entre Nosotras. METHODS: This study will evaluate the appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, and safety of intervention and research procedures for a cluster randomized comparative effectiveness trial conducted in Ecuador and Panamá with migrant and host community women. In this feasibility trial, we will allocate communities nested within the three study sites to the integrated Entre Nosotras + stress management intervention versus Entre Nosotras alone through stratified randomization. Migrant and host community women residing in these study communities who report low to moderate levels of distress will be allocated to the intervention condition that their community is assigned (n = 220 total). We will collect quantitative measures of psychosocial wellbeing, psychological distress, coping, social support, and functioning from study participants. We will collect quantitative measures of fidelity and facilitator competencies through observation and facilitator self-assessment. Data on appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, and safety will be gathered from participants and facilitators through quantitative assessments at 0, 5, and 10 weeks post-enrollment and qualitative interviews conducted with all facilitators and a subset of 70 study participants during the post-intervention follow-up period. DISCUSSION: Results from this feasibility trial will determine whether a multi-site cluster randomized comparative effectiveness trial of an adaptable community-based psychosocial intervention for migrant and host community women is relevant, acceptable, and feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05130944 . Registered November 23, 2021-retrospectively registered.

Community-based participatory design of a psychosocial intervention for migrant women in Ecuador and Panama.

There is increasing evidence supporting the effectiveness of scalable mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) interventions delivered by non-specialists for improving wellbeing among migrant populations in humanitarian settings. Balancing fidelity in the implementation of evidence-based MHPSS interventions with their fit to the needs and preferences of new populations and contexts remains a challenge when introducing MHPSS interventions in new settings. This paper describes a community-based participatory approach to MHPSS intervention design incorporating processes to promote local adaptability and fit while maintaining standardized elements of existing MHPSS interventions. We conducted a mixed-methods study to design a community-based MHPSS intervention that fit the mental health and psychosocial needs of migrant women in three sites in Ecuador and Panama. Drawing from a set of community-based participatory research methods, we identified the priority mental health and psychosocial needs among migrant women, co-developed intervention mechanisms that aligned with those needs, matched mechanisms to existing psychosocial intervention components, and iteratively piloted and refined the intervention with community stakeholders. The resulting intervention was a five-session, lay facilitator-delivered group intervention titled, Entre Nosotras ('among/between us'). The intervention combined elements of individual and community problem solving, psychoeducation, stress management, and social support mobilization to address prioritized problems including psychological distress, safety, community connectedness, xenophobia and discrimination, and social support. This research outlines an emphasis on the social dimension of psychosocial support, as well as a process for balancing fit and fidelity in intervention design and implementation.

Relevance or excellence? Setting research priorities for mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings.

BACKGROUND: Humanitarian crises are associated with an increase in mental disorders and psychological distress. Despite the emerging consensus on intervention strategies in humanitarian settings, the field of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in humanitarian settings lacks a consensus-based research agenda. METHODS: From August 2009 to February 2010, we contacted policymakers, academic researchers, and humanitarian aid workers, and conducted nine semistructured focus group discussions with 114 participants in three locations (Peru, Uganda, and Nepal), in both the capitals and remote humanitarian settings. Local stakeholders representing a range of academic expertise (psychiatry, psychology, social work, child protection, and medical anthropology) and organizations (governments, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and U.N. agencies) were asked to identify priority questions for MHPSS research in humanitarian settings, and to discuss factors that hamper and facilitate research. RESULTS: Thematic analyses of transcripts show that participants broadly agreed on prioritized research themes in the following order: (1) the prevalence and burden of mental health and psychosocial difficulties in humanitarian settings, (2) how MHPSS implementation can be improved, (3) evaluation of specific MHPSS interventions, (4) the determinants of mental health and psychological distress, and (5) improved research methods and processes. Rather than differences in research themes across countries, what emerged was a disconnect between different groups of stakeholders regarding research processes: the perceived lack of translation of research findings into actual policy and programs; misunderstanding of research methods by aid workers; different appreciation of the time needed to conduct research; and disputed universality of research constructs. CONCLUSIONS: To advance a collaborative research agenda, actors in this field need to bridge the perceived disconnect between the goals of "relevance" and "excellence." Research needs to be more sensitive to questions and concerns arising from humanitarian interventions, and practitioners need to take research findings into account in designing interventions.