Background
Despite recent advances in the development and provision of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in humanitarian settings, inadequate supervision remains a significant barrier to successful implementation. The present study sought to incorporate broad stakeholder engagement as part of the first phase of development of a new Integrated Model for Supervision (IMS) for use within MHPSS and protection services in humanitarian emergencies.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 global mental health professionals. Data was analysed thematically, using a combination of inductive and deductive methods. Codes and themes were validated through co-author cross-checks and through a webinar with an expert advisory group.
Results
Results reinforce the importance of effective supervision to enhance the quality of interventions and to protect supervisees’ wellbeing. Participants generally agreed that regular, supportive supervision on a one-to-one basis and as a separate system from line management, is the ideal format. The interviews highlight a need for guidance in specific areas, such as monitoring and evaluation, and navigating power imbalances in the supervisory relationship. Several approaches to supervision were described, including some solutions for use in low-resource situations, such as group, peer-to-peer or remote supervision.
Conclusion
An integrated model for supervision (IMS) should offer a unified framework encompassing a definition of supervision, consolidation of best practice, and goals and guidance for the supervisory process.
Background
Supervision is widely recognised as an important form of support for lay health service providers. However, guidance in appropriate supervision practices for task-shifting health interventions within the unique context of humanitarian emergencies is lacking. This review set out to identify empirically supported features of supervisory practices for lay health care providers in humanitarian emergencies, towards a stronger evidential basis for best practice in supportive supervision.
Methods
In January 2021, six databases and five non-governmental organizations’ websites were searched for articles examining the effectiveness of supervision for health care interventions delivered by lay providers in humanitarian settings. The inclusion criteria for study selection were qualitative or quantitative primary studies, articles published in peer reviewed journals or technical reports and the availability of the studies in English. The outcomes of interest were client clinical outcomes, health service efficiency and sustainability, and lay health care providers well-being. All articles were independently reviewed by the first and last authors.
Results
A total of 3371 articles were initially identified, with a total of 11 articles retained following the systematic screening process (two quantitative, four mixed methods and five qualitative studies). All studies generally reported positive impacts of supportive supervision on client outcomes, service sustainability, staff well-being and staff performance. Only four studies offered emotional support as part of supportive supervision. No studies evaluated the effect of supportive supervision on service efficiency. The narrative synthesis suggests significant challenges with providing supportive supervision, including excessive workloads, difficult supervisory relationships, geographic dispersion of lay providers, safety concerns, poorly trained supervisors, and lack of supervisory guidelines.
Conclusions
More efforts are needed to prioritize supportive supervision in task-shifting frameworks and to ensure that supervision is regular, consistent and of high-quality, with well-trained and well-supported supervisors.
Background
Supportive supervision has been shown to improve worker resilience and wellbeing, which are particularly important in the context of humanitarian emergency settings. Despite its noted importance however, supervision remains an under-prioritised area in mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS).
Method
The present study used a Delphi consensus-building methodology to examine levels of agreement among a diverse sample of MHPSS stakeholders (n = 48) on key ideas and concepts relating to supervision in humanitarian settings.
Results
The majority of statements presented showed a high degree of consensus, with some receiving almost universal agreement, such as the importance of using active listening skills in the supervisory context and the need for supervisors to have access to their own supervisory support. However, disagreement on several points remained. For example, participants disagreed about whether the qualities required to be an effective supervisor can be taught, or whether they are more innate and should be screened for when recruiting supervisors. Gender differences in responses were also analysed, with potential associations between gender and level of agreement emerging in relation to statements about power dynamics, remote supervision, and intervention quality enhancement.
Conclusions
The findings of the present study are discussed in terms of their implications for a forthcoming set of guidelines for supervision of MHPSS in humanitarian settings: The Integrated Model for Supervision (IMS).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.