No abstract

No abstract

Introduction The complex relationship between intimate partner violence and psychological distress warrants an integrated intervention approach. In this study we examined the relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of evaluating a multi-sectoral integrated violence- and mental health-focused intervention (Nguvu). Methods We enrolled 311 Congolese refugee women from Nyarugusu refugee camp in Tanzania with past-year intimate partner violence and elevated psychological distress in a feasibility cluster randomized trial. Women were recruited from local women’s groups that were randomized to the Nguvu intervention or usual care. Participants from women’s groups randomized to Nguvu received 8 weekly sessions delivered by lay refugee incentive workers. Psychological distress, intimate partner violence, other wellbeing, and process indicators were assessed at baseline and 9-weeks post-enrollment to evaluate relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of implementing and evaluating Nguvu in refugee contexts. Results We found that Nguvu was relevant to the needs of refugee women affected by intimate partner violence. We found reductions in some indicators of psychological distress, but did not identify sizeable changes in partner violence over time. Overall, we found that Nguvu was acceptable and feasible. However, challenges to the research protocol included baseline imbalances between study conditions, differential intervention completion related to intimate partner violence histories, differences between Nguvu groups and facilitators, and some indication that Nguvu may be less beneficial for participants with more severe intimate partner violence profiles. Conclusions We found evidence supporting the relevance of Nguvu to refugee women affected by partner violence and psychological distress and moderate evidence supporting the acceptability and feasibility of evaluating and implementing this intervention in a complex refugee setting. A definitive cluster randomized trial requires further adaptations for recruitment and eligibility screening, randomization, and retention. Trial registration ISRCTN65771265, June 27, 2016.

No abstract

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 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.

Populations affected by armed conflict and other humanitarian crises are at elevated risk for mental health problems. While the COVID-19 pandemic has had broadly deleterious effects on livelihoods, economic well-being, and population health worldwide, vulnerable groups have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. Providing mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) services during these times to vulnerable groups, especially in low- and middle-income countries and humanitarian settings, is essential. In an effort to comply with the public health response to the pandemic and mitigate COVID-19 transmission, significant implementation adaptations were made to service delivery during the pandemic. This short report describes several strategies to ensure that equity was central to these adaptations and public health responses, and provides recommendations for ensuring continuity of this progress post-pandemic. Examples and key lessons learned are given related to strategies to increase access to MHPSS services, improve meaningful stakeholder engagement, develop and support community networks, and implement community-based psychosocial support groups. They come from diverse settings of Bangladesh, Colombia, Ecuador, and Lebanon. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of preventing and treating MHPSS issues. It also has created opportunities for innovative programming to address overlooked problems, improve the quality of services provided, and increase focus on equity. It is vital that we use the momentum and attention generated around MHPSS services during the COVID-19 pandemic to continue to build and improve existing MHPSS services in more equitable ways for vulnerable populations.

Inter-agency guidelines recommend that survivors of intimate partner violence in humanitarian settings receive multisectoral services consistent with a survivor-centered approach. Providing integrated services across sectors is challenging, and aspirations often fall short in practice. In this study, we explore factors that influence the implementation of a multisectoral, integrated intervention intended to reduce psychological distress and intimate partner violence in Nyarugusu Refugee Camp, Tanzania. We analyzed data from a desk review of donor, legal, and policy documents; a gender-based violence services mapping conducted through 15 interviews and 6 focus group discussions; and a qualitative process evaluation with 29 stakeholders involved in the implementation of the integrated psychosocial program. We identified the challenges of implementing a multisectoral, integrated intervention for refugee survivors of intimate partner violence at the structural, inter-institutional, intra-institutional, and in social and interpersonal levels. Key determinants of successful implementation included the legal context, financing, inter-agency coordination, engagement and ownership, and the ability to manage competing priorities. Implementing a multisectoral, integrated response for survivors of intimate partner violence is complex and influenced by interrelated factors from policy and financing to institutional and stakeholder engagement. Further investment in identifying strategies to overcome the existing challenges of implementing multisectoral approaches that align with global guidelines is needed to effectively address the burden of intimate partner violence in humanitarian settings.