Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: research priorities for 2021-30.

We describe an effort to develop a consensus-based research agenda for mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) interventions in humanitarian settings for 2021-30. By engaging a broad group of stakeholders, we generated research questions through a qualitative study (in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Uganda; n=101), consultations led by humanitarian agencies (n=259), and an expert panel (n=227; 51% female participants and 49% male participants; 84% of participants based in low-income and middle-income countries). The expert panel selected and rated a final list of 20 research questions. After rating, the MHPSS research agenda favoured applied research questions (eg, regarding workforce strengthening and monitoring and evaluation practices). Compared with research priorities for the previous decade, there is a shift towards systems-oriented implementation research (eg, multisectoral integration and ensuring sustainability) rather than efficacy research. Answering these research questions selected and rated by the expert panel will require improved partnerships between researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and communities affected by humanitarian crises, and improved equity in funding for MHPSS research in low-income and middle-income countries.

Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: linking practice and research.

This review links practice, funding, and evidence for interventions for mental health and psychosocial wellbeing in humanitarian settings. We studied practice by reviewing reports of mental health and psychosocial support activities (2007-10); funding by analysis of the financial tracking service and the creditor reporting system (2007-09); and interventions by systematic review and meta-analysis. In 160 reports, the five most commonly reported activities were basic counselling for individuals (39%); facilitation of community support of vulnerable individuals (23%); provision of child-friendly spaces (21%); support of community-initiated social support (21%); and basic counselling for groups and families (20%). Most interventions took place and were funded outside national mental health and protection systems. 32 controlled studies of interventions were identified, 13 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that met the criteria for meta-analysis. Two studies showed promising effects for strengthening community and family supports. Psychosocial wellbeing was not included as an outcome in the meta-analysis, because its definition varied across studies. In adults with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed beneficial effects for several interventions (psychotherapy and psychosocial supports) compared with usual care or waiting list (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·38, 95% CI -0·55 to -0·20). In children, meta-analysis of four RCTs failed to show an effect for symptoms of PTSD (-0·36, -0·83 to 0·10), but showed a beneficial effect of interventions (group psychotherapy, school-based support, and other psychosocial support) for internalising symptoms (six RCTs; SMD -0·24, -0·40 to -0·09). Overall, research and evidence focuses on interventions that are infrequently implemented, whereas the most commonly used interventions have had little rigorous scrutiny.

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.