The Modern Slavery Core Outcome Set: A Survivor-Driven Consensus on Priority Outcomes for Recovery, Wellbeing, and Reintegration.

There is no consensus on the outcomes needed for the recovery and reintegration of survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking. We developed the Modern Slavery Core Outcome Set (MSCOS) to address this gap. We conducted three English-language reviews on the intervention outcomes sought or experienced by adult survivors: a qualitative systematic review (4 databases, 18 eligible papers, thematic analysis), a rapid review of quantitative intervention studies (four databases, eight eligible papers, content analysis) and a gray literature review (2 databases, 21 websites, a call for evidence, 13 eligible papers, content analysis). We further extracted outcomes from 36 pre-existing interview transcripts with survivors, and seven interviews with survivors from underrepresented groups. We narrowed down outcomes via a consensus process involving: a three-stage E-Delphi survey (191 respondents); and a final consensus workshop (46 participants). We generated 398 outcomes from our 3 reviews, and 843 outcomes from interviews. By removing conceptual and literal duplicates, we reduced this to a longlist of 72 outcomes spanning 10 different domains. The E-Delphi produced a 14-outcome shortlist for the consensus workshop, where 7 final outcomes were chosen. Final outcomes were: "long-term consistent support," "secure and suitable housing," "safety from any trafficker or other abuser," "access to medical treatment," "finding purpose in life and self-actualisation," "access to education," and "compassionate, trauma-informed services." The MSCOS provides outcomes that are accepted by a wide range of stakeholders and that should be measured in intervention evaluation.

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.

The association of migration and ethnicity with use of the Improving Access to Psychological Treatment (IAPT) programme: a general population cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders (CMD), such as depression and anxiety, are an important cause of morbidity, economic burden and public mental health need. The UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme is a national effort to reduce the burden and impact of CMD, available since 2008. AIMS: To examine ethnic and migration-related differences in use of IAPT-based psychological treatment using a novel epidemiological dataset with linkage to de-identified IAPT records. METHOD: Data from a psychiatric morbidity survey of two South East London boroughs (2008-2010) were individually-linked to data on IAPT services serving those boroughs. We used Poisson regression to estimate association between ethnicity and migration status (including years of UK residence), with rate of subsequent use of psychological treatment. RESULTS: The rate of psychological treatment use was 14.4 cases per thousand person years [cases/1000 pyrs, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 12.4, 16.7]. There was strong statistical evidence that compared to non-migrants, migrants residing in the UK for less than 10 years were less likely to use psychological treatment after adjustment for probable sociodemographic predictors of need, life adversity, and physical/psychiatric morbidity at baseline [rate ratio (RR) 0.4 (95% CI 0.20, 0.75]. This difference was not explained by migration for asylum/political reasons, or English language proficiency, and was evident for both self- and GP referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Lower use of IAPT among recent migrants is unexplained by sociodemographics, adversity, and baseline morbidity. Further research should focus on other individual-level and societal barriers to psychological treatment use among recent migrants to the UK, including in categories of intersecting migration and ethnicity.

Seeking sanctuary: rethinking asylum and mental health.

Forced migrants are at an increased risk of mental disorder compared to host country populations. To effectively address this, programmatic and policy responses need to be underpinned by rigorous evidence. Drawing on our experience conducting a systematic review of post-migration risk factors for mental disorder among asylum seekers and our appraisal of related systematic reviews, this paper discusses four challenges facing the field: (1)The reliance on Western conceptions of mental health.(2)The investigation, to date, of a relatively narrow range of potential risk factors.(3)The lack of consistency in the measurement and reporting of risk factor variables.(4)The use of the legal term 'asylum seeker' to define study populations.We suggest potential ways forward, including using mental health measures developed in collaboration with communities affected by forced migration, the examination of key risk factors around homelessness and workers' rights, the development of a core set of risk factors to be investigated in each study, and defining study populations using the conceptual category of 'sanctuary seekers' - people who have fled their country and are asking another country for safety and residence.

Correction to: Post-migration Social-Environmental Factors Associated with Mental Health Problems among Asylum Seekers: A Systematic Review.

The original version of the article unfortunately contained an error in Table 1 and the text under Result section.

Post-migration Social-Environmental Factors Associated with Mental Health Problems Among Asylum Seekers: A Systematic Review.

People seeking asylum are at an increased risk of mental disorder compared to refugees and other migrants. This paper aims to understand the impact of postmigration social-environmental factors to help inform efforts to reduce rates of mental disorder. We conducted a systematic review searching 11 databases, as well as 6 government and nongovernment websites. We asked 5 experts for recommendations, and carried out forwards and backwards citation tracking. From 7004 papers 21 were eligible and had the appropriate data. Narrative synthesis was conducted. 24 Social-environmental factors were identified and categorised into 7 themes: working conditions, social networks, economic class, living conditions, healthcare, community and identity, and the immigration system. Evidence suggests that discrimination and post-migration stress are associated with increased rates of mental disorder. The post-migration environment influences the mental health of people seeking asylum. Discrimination and post-migration stress are key factors, warranting further research and public attention.