A call for greater conceptual clarity in the field of mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings.

AIMS: When the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) adopted the composite term mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and published its guidelines for MHPSS in emergency settings in 2007, it aimed to build consensus and strengthen coordination among relevant humanitarian actors. The term MHPSS offered an inclusive tent by welcoming the different terminologies, explanatory models and intervention methods of diverse actors across several humanitarian sectors (e.g., health, protection, education, nutrition). Since its introduction, the term has become well-established within the global humanitarian system. However, it has also been critiqued for papering over substantive differences in the intervention priorities and conceptual frameworks that inform the wide range of interventions described as MHPSS. Our aims are to clarify those conceptual frameworks, to argue for their essential complementarity and to illustrate the perils of failing to adequately consider the causal models and theories of change that underlie our interventions. METHODS: We describe the historical backdrop against which the term MHPSS and the IASC guidelines were developed, as well as their impact on improving relations and coordination among different aid sectors. We consider the conceptual fuzziness in the field of MHPSS and the lack of clear articulation of the different conceptual frameworks that guide interventions. We describe the explanatory models and intervention approaches of two primary frameworks within MHPSS, which we label clinical and social-environmental. Using the examples of intimate partner violence and compromised parenting in humanitarian settings, we illustrate the complementarity of these two frameworks, as well as the challenges that can arise when either framework is inappropriately applied. RESULTS: Clinical interventions prioritise the role of intrapersonal variables, biological and/or psychological, as mediators of change in the treatment of distress. Social-environmental interventions emphasise the role of social determinants of distress and target factors in the social and material environments in order to lower distress and increase resilience in the face of adversity. Both approaches play a critical role in humanitarian settings; however, the rationale for adopting one or the other approach is commonly insufficiently articulated and should be based on a thorough assessment of causal processes at multiple levels of the social ecology. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention to the 'why' of our intervention choices and more explicit articulation of the causal models and theories of change that underlie those decisions (i.e., the 'how'), may strengthen intervention effects and minimise the risk of applying the inappropriate framework and actions to a particular problem.

Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: a public mental health perspective.

AIMS: To discuss the potential usefulness of a public health approach for 'mental health and psychosocial support' (MHPSS) interventions in humanitarian settings. METHODS: Building on public mental health terminology in accordance with recent literature on this topic and considering existing international consensus guidelines on MHPSS interventions in humanitarian settings, this paper reflects on the relevance of the language of promotion and prevention for supporting the rationale, design and evaluation of interventions, with a particular focus on populations affected by disasters and conflicts in low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: A public mental health approach and associated terminology can form a useful framework in the design and evaluation of MHPSS interventions, and may contribute to reducing a divisive split between 'mental health' and 'psychosocial' practice in the humanitarian field. Many of the most commonly implemented MHPSS interventions in humanitarian settings can be described in terms of promotion and prevention terminology. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a common terminology across health, protection, education, nutrition and other relevant sectors providing humanitarian interventions has the potential to allow for integration of MHPSS activities in one overall framework, with diverse humanitarian practitioners working to achieve a common goal.

Transitioning mental health & psychosocial support: from short-term emergency to sustainable post-disaster development. Humanitarian Action Summit 2011.

INTRODUCTION: The Working Group (WG) on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support participated in its second Humanitarian Action Summit in 2011. This year, the WG chose to focus on a new goal: reviewing practice related to transitioning mental health and psychosocial support programs from the emergency phase to long-term development. The Working Group's findings draw on a review of relevant literature as well as case examples. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the Working Group was to identify factors that promote or hinder the long term sustainability of emergency mental health and psychosocial interventions in crisis and conflict, and to provide recommendations for transitioning such programs from relief to development. METHODS: The Working Group (WG) conducted a review of relevant literature and collected case examples based on experiences and observations of working group members in implementing mental and psychosocial programming in the field. The WG focused on reviewing literature on mental health and psychosocial programs and interventions that were established in conflict, disaster, protracted crisis settings, or transition from acute phase to development phase. The WG utilized case examples from programs in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Sierra Leone, Aceh (Indonesia), Sri Lanka, and New Orleans (United States). RESULTS: The WG identified five key thematic areas that should be addressed in order to successfully transition lasting and effective mental health and psychosocial programs from emergency settings to the development phase. The five areas identified were as follows: Government and Policy, Human Resources and Training, Programming and Services, Research and Monitoring, and Finance. CONCLUSIONS: The group identified several recommendations for each thematic area, which were generated from key lessons learned by working group members through implementing mental health and psychosocial support programs in a variety of settings, some successfully sustained and some that were not.

Mental health and psychosocial support in crisis and conflict: report of the Mental Health Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: The Working Group on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support was convened as part of the 2009 Harvard Humanitarian Action Summit. The Working Group chose to focus on ethical issues in mental health and psychosocial research and programming in humanitarian settings. The Working Group built on previous work and recommendations, such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this working group was to address one of the factors contributing to the deficiency of research and the need to develop the evidence base on mental health and psychosocial support interventions during complex emergencies by proposing ethical research guidelines. Outcomes research is vital for effective program development in emergency settings, but to date, no comprehensive ethical guidelines exist for guiding such research efforts. METHODS: Working Group members conducted literature reviews which included peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and relevant guidelines on the following topics: general ethical principles in research, cross-cultural issues, research in resource-poor countries, and specific populations such as trauma and torture survivors, refugees, minorities, children and youth, and the mentally ill. Working Group members also shared key points regarding ethical issues encountered in their own research and fieldwork. RESULTS: The group adapted a broad definition of the term "research", which encompasses needs assessments and data gathering, as well as monitoring and evaluation. The guidelines are conceptualized as applying to formal and informal processes of assessment and evaluation in which researchers as well as most service providers engage. The group reached consensus that it would be unethical not to conduct research and evaluate outcomes of mental health and psychosocial interventions in emergency settings, given that there currently is very little good evidence base for such interventions. Overarching themes and issues generated by the group for further study and articulation included: purpose and benefits of research, issues of validity, neutrality, risk, subject selection and participation, confidentiality, consent, and dissemination of results. CONCLUSIONS: The group outlined several key topics and recommendations that address ethical issues in conducting mental health and psychosocial research in humanitarian settings. The group views this set of recommendations as a living document to be further developed and refined based on input from colleagues representing different regions of the globe with an emphasis on input from colleagues from low-resource countries.