By engaging expert opinion, Marko Kerac and colleagues set research priorities for the management of acute malnutrition in infants.

Major knowledge gaps remain concerning the most effective ways to address mental health and psychosocial needs of populations affected by humanitarian crises. The Research for Health in Humanitarian Crisis (R2HC) program aims to strengthen humanitarian health practice and policy through research. As a significant portion of R2HC’s research has focused on mental health and psychosocial support interventions, the program has been interested in strengthening a community of practice in this field. Following a meeting between grantees, we set out to provide an overview of the R2HC portfolio, and draw lessons learned. In this paper, we discuss the mental health and psychosocial support-focused research projects funded by R2HC; review the implications of initial findings from this research portfolio; and highlight four remaining knowledge gaps in this field. Between 2014 and 2019, R2HC funded 18 academic-practitioner partnerships focused on mental health and psychosocial support, comprising 38% of the overall portfolio (18 of 48 projects) at a value of approximately 7.2 million GBP. All projects have focused on evaluating the impact of interventions. In line with consensus-based recommendations to consider a wide range of mental health and psychosocial needs in humanitarian settings, research projects have evaluated diverse interventions. Findings so far have both challenged and confirmed widely-held assumptions about the effectiveness of mental health and psychosocial interventions in humanitarian settings. They point to the importance of building effective, sustained, and diverse partnerships between scholars, humanitarian practitioners, and funders, to ensure long-term program improvements and appropriate evidence-informed decision making. Further research needs to fill knowledge gaps regarding how to: scale-up interventions that have been found to be effective (e.g., questions related to integration across sectors, adaptation of interventions across different contexts, and optimal care systems); address neglected mental health conditions and populations (e.g., elderly, people with disabilities, sexual minorities, people with severe, pre-existing mental disorders); build on available local resources and supports (e.g., how to build on traditional, religious healing and community-wide social support practices); and ensure equity, quality, fidelity, and sustainability for interventions in real-world contexts (e.g., answering questions about how interventions from controlled studies can be transferred to more representative humanitarian contexts).

No abstract

Background The disproportionately high burden of mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries, coupled with the overwhelming lack of resources, requires an innovative approach to intervention and response. This study evaluated the feasibility of delivering a maternal mental health service in a severely-resource constrained setting as part of routine service delivery. Methods This exploratory feasibility study was undertaken at two health facilities in Afghanistan that did not have specialist mental health workers. Women who had given birth in the past 12 months were screened for depressive symptoms with the PHQ9 and invited to participate in a psychological intervention which was offered through an infant feeding scheme. Results Of the 215 women screened, 131 (60.9%) met the PHQ9 criteria for referral to the intervention. The screening prevalence of postnatal depression was 61%, using a PHQ9 cut-off score of 12. Additionally, 29% of women registered as suicidal on the PHQ9. Several demographic and psychosocial variables were associated with depressive symptoms in this sample, including nutritional status of the infant, anxiety symptoms, vegetative and mood symptoms, marital difficulties, intimate partner violence, social isolation, acute stress and experience of trauma. Of the 47 (65%) women who attended all six sessions of the intervention, all had significantly decreased PHQ9 scores post-intervention. Conclusion In poorly resourced environments, where the prevalence of postnatal depression is high, a shift in response from specialist-based to primary health care-level intervention may be a viable way to provide maternal mental health care. It is recommended that such programmes also consider home-visiting components and be integrated into existing infant and child health programmes. Manualised, evidence-based psychological interventions, delivered by non-specialist health workers, can improve outcomes where resources are scarce.

Aims Observational studies have shown a relationship between maternal mental health (MMH) and child development, but few studies have evaluated whether MMH interventions improve child-related outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this review is to synthesise findings on the effectiveness of MMH interventions to improve child-related outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods We searched for randomised controlled trials conducted in LMICs evaluating interventions with a MMH component and reporting children's outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes included in at least two trials. Results We identified 21 trials with 28 284 mother–child dyads. Most trials were conducted in middle-income countries, evaluating home visiting interventions delivered by general health workers, starting in the third trimester of pregnancy. Only ten trials described acceptable methods for blinding outcome assessors. Four trials showed high risk of bias in at least two of the seven domains assessed in this review. Narrative synthesis showed promising but inconclusive findings for child-related outcomes. Meta-analysis identified a sizeable impact of interventions on exclusive breastfeeding (risk ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13–1.71, ten trials, N = 4749 mother–child dyads, I2 = 61%) and a small effect on child height-for-age at 6-months (std. mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02–0.24, three trials, N = 1388, I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses did not identify intervention benefits for child cognitive and other growth outcomes; however, few trials measured these outcomes. Conclusions These findings support the importance of MMH to improve child-related outcomes in LMICs, particularly exclusive breastfeeding. Given, the small number of trials and methodological limitations, more rigorous trials should be conducted.

No abstract

Background: Many small and malnourished infants under 6 months of age have problems with breastfeeding and restoring effective exclusive breastfeeding is a common treatment goal. Assessment is a critical first step of case management, but most malnutrition guidelines do not specify how best to do this. We aimed to identify breastfeeding assessment tools for use in assessing at-risk and malnourished infants in resource-poor settings. Methods: We systematically searched: Medline and Embase; Web of Knowledge; Cochrane Reviews; Eldis and Google Scholar databases. Also the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), CAse REport guidelines, Emergency Nutrition Network, and Field Exchange websites. Assessment tool content was analysed using a framework describing breastfeeding ‘domains’ (baby’s behaviour; mother’s behaviour; position; latching; effective feeding; breast health; baby’s health; mother’s view of  feed; number, timing and length of feeds). Results: We identified 29 breastfeeding assessment tools and 45 validation studies. Eight tools had not been validated. Evidence underpinning most tools was low quality and mainly from high-income countries and hospital settings. The most comprehensive tools were the Breastfeeding, Evaluation and Education Tool, UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative tools and CARE training package. The tool with the strongest evidence was the WHO/UNICEF B-R-E-A-S-T-Feed Observation Form. Conclusions: Despite many possible tools, there is currently no one gold standard. For assessing malnourished infants in resource-poor settings, UNICEF Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative tools, Module IFE and the WHO/UNICEF B-R-E-A-S-T-Feed Observation Form are the best available tools but could be improved by adding questions from other tools. Allowing for context, one tool for rapid community-based assessment plus a more detailed one for clinic/hospital assessment might help optimally identify breastfeeding problems and the support required. Further research is important to refine existing tools and develop new ones. Rigorous testing, especially against outcomes such as breastfeeding status and growth, is key.

No abstract