39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in asylum seekers and refugees: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          In the past few years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of forcibly displaced migrants worldwide, of which a substantial proportion is refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers may experience high levels of psychological distress, and show high rates of mental health conditions. It is therefore timely and particularly relevant to assess whether current evidence supports the provision of psychosocial interventions for this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions compared with control conditions (treatment as usual/no treatment, waiting list, psychological placebo) aimed at reducing mental health problems in distressed refugees and asylum seekers.

          Methods

          We used Cochrane procedures for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. We searched for published and unpublished RCTs assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in adults and children asylum seekers and refugees with psychological distress. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive and anxiety symptoms at post-intervention were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include: PTSD, depressive and anxiety symptoms at follow-up, functioning, quality of life and dropouts due to any reason.

          Results

          We included 26 studies with 1959 participants. Meta-analysis of RCTs revealed that psychosocial interventions have a clinically significant beneficial effect on PTSD (standardised mean difference [SMD] = −0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.01 to −0.41; I 2 = 83%; 95% CI 78–88; 20 studies, 1370 participants; moderate quality evidence), depression (SMD = −1.02; 95% CI −1.52 to −0.51; I 2 = 89%; 95% CI 82–93; 12 studies, 844 participants; moderate quality evidence) and anxiety outcomes (SMD = −1.05; 95% CI −1.55 to −0.56; I 2 = 87%; 95% CI 79–92; 11 studies, 815 participants; moderate quality evidence). This beneficial effect was maintained at 1 month or longer follow-up, which is extremely important for populations exposed to ongoing post-migration stressors. For the other secondary outcomes, we identified a non-significant trend in favour of psychosocial interventions. Most evidence supported interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma-focused component. Limitations of this review include the limited number of studies collected, with a relatively low total number of participants, and the limited available data for positive outcomes like functioning and quality of life.

          Conclusions

          Considering the epidemiological relevance of psychological distress and mental health conditions in refugees and asylum seekers, and in view of the existing data on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, these interventions should be routinely made available as part of the health care of distressed refugees and asylum seekers. Evidence-based guidelines and implementation packages should be developed accordingly.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The development of a Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale.

          Several interviews are available for assessing PTSD. These interviews vary in merit when compared on stringent psychometric and utility standards. Of all the interviews, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-1) appears to satisfy these standards most uniformly. The CAPS-1 is a structured interview for assessing core and associated symptoms of PTSD. It assesses the frequency and intensity of each symptom using standard prompt questions and explicit, behaviorally-anchored rating scales. The CAPS-1 yields both continuous and dichotomous scores for current and lifetime PTSD symptoms. Intended for use by experienced clinicians, it also can be administered by appropriately trained paraprofessionals. Data from a large scale psychometric study of the CAPS-1 have provided impressive evidence of its reliability and validity as a PTSD interview.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice.

            In randomized clinical trails (RCTs), effect sizes seen in earlier studies guide both the choice of the effect size that sets the appropriate threshold of clinical significance and the rationale to believe that the true effect size is above that threshold worth pursuing in an RCT. That threshold is used to determine the necessary sample size for the proposed RCT. Once the RCT is done, the data generated are used to estimate the true effect size and its confidence interval. Clinical significance is assessed by comparing the true effect size to the threshold effect size. In subsequent meta-analysis, this effect size is combined with others, ultimately to determine whether treatment (T) is clinically significantly better than control (C). Thus, effect sizes play an important role both in designing RCTs and in interpreting their results; but specifically which effect size? We review the principles of statistical significance, power, and meta-analysis, and commonly used effect sizes. The commonly used effect sizes are limited in conveying clinical significance. We recommend three equivalent effect sizes: number needed to treat, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve comparing T and C responses, and success rate difference, chosen specifically to convey clinical significance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Modeling the Effects of Perceptual Load: Saliency, Competitive Interactions, and Top-Down Biases

              A computational model of visual selective attention has been implemented to account for experimental findings on the Perceptual Load Theory (PLT) of attention. The model was designed based on existing neurophysiological findings on attentional processes with the objective to offer an explicit and biologically plausible formulation of PLT. Simulation results verified that the proposed model is capable of capturing the basic pattern of results that support the PLT as well as findings that are considered contradictory to the theory. Importantly, the model is able to reproduce the behavioral results from a dilution experiment, providing thus a way to reconcile PLT with the competing Dilution account. Overall, the model presents a novel account for explaining PLT effects on the basis of the low-level competitive interactions among neurons that represent visual input and the top-down signals that modulate neural activity. The implications of the model concerning the debate on the locus of selective attention as well as the origins of distractor interference in visual displays of varying load are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci
                Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci
                EPS
                Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                2045-7960
                2045-7979
                August 2019
                11 February 2019
                : 28
                : 4
                : 376-388
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cochrane Global Mental Health and WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona , Verona, Italy
                [2 ]Department of Psychology, Istanbul Sehir University , Orhantepe Mahallesi, Turgut Özal Bulvarı, Kartal/İstanbul, Turkey
                [3 ]University of Turku, Faculty of Medicine , Turku, Finland
                [4 ]Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization , Geneva, Switzerland
                [5 ]Department of Dependence (SerD2), Azienda ULSS N. 8 Berica, Vicenza, Italy
                [6 ]International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Reference Centre for Psychosocial Support/Danish Red Cross , Copenhagen, Denmark
                [7 ]Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Review Group, University of York , York, UK
                [8 ]Department of Clinical and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [9 ]Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University , Ulm, Germany
                [10 ]Hong Kong Polytechnic University , Hong Kong, China SAR
                [11 ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Division for Social Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna , Vienna, Austria
                [12 ]Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK
                Author notes
                Author for correspondence: G. Turrini, E-mail: giulia.turrini@ 123456univr.it
                Article
                S2045796019000027 00002
                10.1017/S2045796019000027
                6669989
                30739625
                0a2b65ff-fddc-489a-a564-d05120712584
                © Cambridge University Press 2019

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 October 2018
                : 27 December 2018
                : 06 January 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, References: 79, Pages: 13
                Categories
                Special Articles

                asylum seekers,mental health,psychosocial interventions,refugees

                Comments

                Comment on this article