Methods are needed for quantifying the potency and differential effects of risk factors to identify at-risk groups for theory building and intervention. Traditional methods for constructing war exposure measures are poorly suited to "unpack" differential relations between specific types of exposure and specific outcomes. This study of 881 Bosnian adolescents compared both common factor-effect indicator (using exploratory factor analysis) versus composite causal-indicator methods for "unpacking" dimensions of war exposure and their respective paths to postwar adjustment outcomes. The composite method better supported theory building and most intervention applications, showing how multitiered interventions can enhance treatment effectiveness and efficiency in war settings. Used together, the methods may unpack the elements and differential effects of "caravans" of risk and promotive factors that co-occur across development.

Refugees resettled in the United States have disproportionately high rates of psychological distress. Research has demonstrated the roles of post-migration stressors, including lack of meaningful social roles, poverty, unemployment, lack of environmental mastery, discrimination, limited English proficiency, and social isolation. We report a multi-method, within-group longitudinal pilot study involving the adaptation for African refugees of a community-based advocacy and learning intervention to address post-migration stressors. We found the intervention to be feasible, acceptable and appropriate for African refugees. Growth trajectory analysis revealed significant decreases in participants’ psychological distress and increases in quality of life, and also provided preliminary evidence of intervention mechanisms of change through the detection of mediating relationships whereby increased quality of life was mediated by increases in enculturation, English proficiency, and social support. Qualitative data helped to support and explain the quantitative data. Results demonstrate the importance of addressing the sociopolitical context of resettlement to promote the mental health of refugees and suggest a culturally-appropriate, and replicable model for doing so.

Highlights• Multilevel strengths-based intervention decreases refugee distress and improves protective factors.• Holistic focus on psychological, material, social, educational, and cultural needs is effective.• High recruitment/retention rates support importance of non-stigmatizing universal interventions.• Refugee Well-being Project (RWP) intervention reaches refugees unlikely to access formal mental health services.• RWP circumvents typical barriers to services (stigma, trust, linguistic/cultural appropriateness).

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a long-standing and important design for conducting rigorous tests of the effectiveness of health interventions. However, many questions have been raised about the external validity of RCTs, their utility in explicating mechanisms of intervention and participants’ intervention experiences, and their feasibility and acceptability. In the current mixed methods study, academic and community partners developed and implemented an RCT to test the effectiveness of a collaboratively developed community-based advocacy, learning, and social support intervention. The goals of the intervention were to address social determinants of health and build trust and connections with other mental health services in order to reduce mental health disparities among Afghan, Great Lakes Region African and Iraqi refugee adults and engage and retain refugees in trauma-focused treatment, if needed. Two cohorts completed the intervention between 2013-2015. Ninety-three adult refugees were randomly assigned to intervention or control group and completed four research interviews (pre-, mid-, post-intervention, and follow-up). Several challenges to conducting a community-based RCT emerged, including issues related to interviewer intervention to assist participants in the control group, diffusion of intervention resources throughout the small refugee communities, and staff and community concerns about the RCT design and what evidence is meaningful to demonstrate intervention effectiveness. These findings highlight important epistemological, methodological, and ethical challenges that should be considered when conducting community-based RCTs and interpreting results from them. In addition, several innovations were developed to address these challenges, which may be useful for other community-academic partnerships engaged in RCTs.

No abstract