ABSTRACT
The humanitarian sector has often been criticised for its hierarchical power dynamics. Such dynamics often centre the priorities of 'international' actors, thereby marginalising the knowledge and expertise of those closest to the setting and play out in various fora, including coordination mechanisms. While guidance emphasises the importance of supporting local systems and government structures rather than creating parallel humanitarian structures, this approach is not consistently applied, creating challenges. We used a case study approach to explore how power relations influence the practice of the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Taskforce in Lebanon, a nationally-led coordination mechanism chaired by the Ministry of Public Health with UN agencies as co-chairs. We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with Taskforce members and other stakeholders coordinating with the Taskforce, including local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international NGOs, United Nations agencies and government ministries. Interview transcripts were collaboratively analysed using Dedoose. We conducted feedback workshops with participants and integrated their feedback into analysis. We found that UN agencies and international NGOs are perceived as holding more decision-making power due to their access to funding and credibility-both shaped by the humanitarian system. Our findings also suggest that power dynamics arising mainly from differences in seniority, relations between 'local' and 'expat' staff, and language used in meetings may affect, to varying degrees, decision-making power and members' voices. We also show how the agenda/focus of meetings, meeting format, language, and existing relationships with Taskforce leaders can influence levels of participation and decision-making in Taskforce meetings, ranging from lack of participation through being informed or consulted about decisions to decisions made in partnership. Our findings have broader implications for coordinating service delivery within the humanitarian sector, emphasising the need to reflect upon power imbalances critically and continually and to ensure a shared understanding of decision-making processes.
ABSTRACT
There has been an increase in the evaluation and implementation of non-specialist delivered psychological interventions to address unmet mental health needs in humanitarian emergencies. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide important evidence about intervention impact, complementary qualitative process evaluations are essential to understand key implementation processes and inform future scaling up of the intervention. This study was conducted as part of an RCT of the Early Adolescents Skills for Emotions (EASE) psychological intervention for young adolescents with elevated psychological distress (predominantly with a Syrian refugee background) in Lebanon. Our aims were firstly to conduct a qualitative process evaluation to understand stakeholder experiences and perceived impact of the intervention and identify barriers and facilitators for implementation, and secondly to explore considerations for scaling up. Eleven key informant interviews and seven focus groups were conducted with 39 respondents including adolescent and caregiver participants, trainers, providers, outreach workers, and local stakeholders. Data were analyzed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Respondents perceived the intervention to be highly needed and reported improvements in adolescent mental health and wellbeing. Key implementation factors that have potential to influence engagement, adherence, and perceived impact included the socio-economic situation of families, mental health stigma, coordination within and between sectors (particularly for scaling up), embedding the intervention within existing service pathways, having clear quality and accountability processes including training and supervision for non-specialists, and sustainable funding. Our findings provide important context for understanding effectiveness outcomes of the RCT and highlights factors that need to be considered when implementing a mental health intervention on a larger scale in a complex crisis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is a need for scalable evidence-based psychological interventions for young adolescents experiencing high levels of psychological distress in humanitarian settings and low- and middle-income countries. Poor mental health during adolescence presents a serious public health concern as it is a known predictor of persistent mental disorders in adulthood. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a new group-based intervention developed by the World Health Organization (Early Adolescent Skills for Emotions; EASE), implemented by non-specialists, to reduce young adolescents' psychological distress among mostly Syrian refugees in Lebanon. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm, single-blind, individually randomized group treatment trial. Adolescents aged 10 to 14 years who screened positive for psychological distress using the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) were randomly allocated to EASE or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) (1:1.6). ETAU consisted of a single scripted psycho-education home-visit session with the adolescent and their caregivers. EASE consists of seven group sessions with adolescents and three sessions with caregivers. The primary outcome was adolescent-reported psychological distress as measured with the PSC (internalizing, externalizing, and attentional symptoms). Secondary outcomes included depression, posttraumatic stress, well-being, functioning, and caregivers' parenting and distress. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, endline, and 3 months (primary time point) and 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other adversities in Lebanon at the time of this research, the study was prematurely terminated, resulting in an under-powered trial sample (n = 198 enrolled compared to n = 445 targeted). We screened 604 children for eligibility. The 198 enrolled adolescents were assigned to EASE (n = 80) and ETAU (n = 118), with retention rates between 76.1 and 88.4% across all timepoints. Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated no between-group differences on any of the outcome measures between the EASE and ETAU. We did observe a significant improvement on the primary outcome equally in the EASE and ETAU groups (-0.90, 95% CI: -3.6, 1.8; p = .52), - a trend that was sustained at three months follow-up. Sub-group analyses, for those with higher depression symptoms at baseline, showed ETAU outperformed EASE on reducing depression symptoms (difference in mean change = 2.7, 95% CI: 0.1, 5.3; p = .04; d = 0.59) and internalizing problems (difference in mean change 1.0, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.9; p = .03; d = 0.56) . CONCLUSION: No conclusions can be drawn about the comparative effectiveness of the intervention given that the sample was underpowered as a result of early termination. Both EASE and single session psycho-education home visits resulted in meaningful improvements in reducing psychological distress. We did not identify any indications in the data suggesting that EASE was more effective than a single session family intervention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises in Lebanon. Fully powered research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of EASE.
