Mapping the evidence on psychosocial interventions for migrant populations: Descriptive analysis of a living database of randomized studies.

Migrant mental health is a pressing public health issue with wide-ranging implications. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in this population to assess the effects of psychosocial interventions. However, the available evidence is characterized by controversy and fragmentation, with studies focusing on different migrant populations, interventions, outcomes, delivery modalities and settings. Aiming to promote systematic reviews of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in different migrant groups, we have developed a living database of existing RCTs. The development of the database provides an opportunity to map the existing RCT evidence in this population. A total of 135 studies involving 24,859 participants were included in the living database. The distribution of studies by year of publication aligns with the increasing global migrant population in recent years. Most studies focus primarily on adult participants, with a limited representation of children and adolescents, and a prevalence of female participants, which is consistent with epidemiological data, except for older adults, who are underrepresented in research. Studies predominantly focus on refugees and asylum seekers, likely due to their elevated risk of mental health issues, despite the substantial presence of economic migrants worldwide. While studies mainly involve migrants from the Middle East and East Asia, epidemiological data suggest a broader geographic representation, with migrants coming from Eastern Europe, Latin America and South Asia. The present descriptive analysis of RCTs on mental health and psychosocial interventions for migrant populations provides valuable insights into the existing research landscape. It should be used to inform future research efforts, ensuring that studies are more representative of the global migrant population and more responsive to the mental health needs of migrants in different contexts.

EMDR v. other psychological therapies for PTSD: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) examined the overall effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) in reducing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, achieving response and remission, and reducing treatment dropout among adults with PTSD compared to other psychological treatments. Additionally, we examined available participant-level moderators of the efficacy of EMDR. METHODS: This study included randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, PsyclNFO, PTSDpubs, and CENTRAL. The target population was adults with above-threshold baseline PTSD symptoms. Trials were eligible if at least 70% of study participants had been diagnosed with PTSD using a structured clinical interview. Primary outcomes included PTSD symptom severity, treatment response, and PTSD remission. Treatment dropout was a secondary outcome. The systematic search retrieved 15 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 8 of these 15 were able to be included in this IPDMA (346 patients). Comparator treatments included relaxation therapy, emotional freedom technique, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral psychotherapies, and REM-desensitization. RESULTS: One-stage IPDMA found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments in reducing PTSD symptom severity (ß = -0.24), achieving response (ß = 0.86), attaining remission (ß = 1.05), or reducing treatment dropout rates (ß = -0.25). Moderator analyses found unemployed participants receiving EMDR had higher PTSD symptom severity at the post-test, and males were more likely to drop out of EMDR treatment than females. CONCLUSION: The current study found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments. We found some indication of the moderating effects of gender and employment status.

The associations of hair cortisol and DHEA with posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in refugees.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to traumatic events, ongoing adversity, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are associated with altered activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, but findings are mixed. This may be explained in part by heterogeneity in PTSD symptom profiles. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the complex relationships between the number of traumatic events and post-displacement stressors, individual symptoms of PTSD, and HPA-axis hormones cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) in refugees. METHODS: Adult (18+ years) Syrian refugees with increased levels of distress participating in a randomized controlled trial completed baseline measures to assess traumatic events (trauma checklist), post-displacement stressors (Post-Migration Living Difficulties checklist), symptoms of PTSD (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5; PCL-5), and provided a hair sample for additional stress hormone analyses. We used R-packages qgraph and bootnet to perform network analysis on the number of traumatic events and post-displacement stressors, individual symptoms of PTSD, and HPA-axis hormones cortisol and DHEA. The final network model was corrected for depression severity. RESULTS: 115 (53% male, M age = 36.9, SD = 12.7) of 206 participants provided a hair sample. A higher number of traumatic events was directly associated with three symptoms of the PTSD cluster arousal and reactivity, i.e., sleep disturbance, hypervigilance and physiological reactivity, and with three other PTSD symptoms, namely flashbacks, avoidance of reminders, and self-destructive behavior. A higher number of post-displacement stressors was associated with four symptoms of the PTSD cluster cognition and mood, i.e., trauma-related amnesia, negative beliefs, blaming of self/others, and detachment, as well as with intrusive thoughts, sleep disturbance, hypervigilance, and exaggerated startle response. The number of traumatic events and post-displacement stressors were not associated with cortisol or DHEA. Cortisol was positively associated with two symptoms of the PTSD cluster cognition and mood, i.e., negative beliefs and negative trauma-related emotions, and negatively associated with avoidance of reminders. DHEA was positively associated with restricted affect and with three symptoms of the PTSD symptom cluster arousal and reactivity, i.e., irritability/anger, sleep disturbance, and self-destructive behavior, and negatively associated with avoidance of thoughts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that exposure to traumatic events and post-displacement stressors is not related to cortisol and DHEA, but that cortisol and DHEA are differentially related to individual symptoms of PTSD. While lower levels of both cortisol and DHEA were associated with increased avoidance, higher levels of cortisol were mostly associated with symptoms of the PTSD cluster cognition and mood and higher levels of DHEA were mostly associated with symptoms of the PTSD cluster arousal and reactivity. These findings contribute to explaining the variability of findings in the literature on HPA-axis activity in PTSD. ETHICS: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Review Committee at VU Medical Center, the Netherlands (Protocol ID: NL61361.029.17, 7 September 2017) and prospectively registered online (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6665).

Effectiveness of a scalable, remotely delivered stepped-care intervention to reduce symptoms of psychological distress among Polish migrant workers in the Netherlands: study protocol for the RESPOND randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the mental health of international migrant workers (IMWs). IMWs experience multiple barriers to accessing mental health care. Two scalable interventions developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) were adapted to address some of these barriers: Doing What Matters in times of stress (DWM), a guided self-help web application, and Problem Management Plus (PM +), a brief facilitator-led program to enhance coping skills. This study examines whether DWM and PM + remotely delivered as a stepped-care programme (DWM/PM +) is effective and cost-effective in reducing psychological distress, among Polish migrant workers with psychological distress living in the Netherlands. METHODS: The stepped-care DWM/PM + intervention will be tested in a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) among adult Polish migrant workers with self-reported psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; K10 > 15.9). Participants (n = 212) will be randomized into either the intervention group that receives DWM/PM + with psychological first aid (PFA) and care-as-usual (enhanced care-as-usual or eCAU), or into the control group that receives PFA and eCAU-only (1:1 allocation ratio). Baseline, 1-week post-DWM (week 7), 1-week post-PM + (week 13), and follow-up (week 21) self-reported assessments will be conducted. The primary outcome is psychological distress, assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). Secondary outcomes are self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), resilience, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. In a process evaluation, stakeholders' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DWM/PM + will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is one of the first RCTs that combines two scalable, psychosocial WHO interventions into a stepped-care programme for migrant populations. If proven to be effective, this may bridge the mental health treatment gap IMWs experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register NL9630, 20/07/2021, https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/27052.

Addressing mental health problems among persons without stable housing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a randomised trial. RESPOND - France.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on population-wide mental health and well-being. Although people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage may be especially vulnerable, they experience barriers in accessing mental health care. To overcome these barriers, the World Health Organization (WHO) designed two scalable psychosocial interventions, namely the web-based Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and the face-to-face Problem Management Plus (PM+), to help people manage stressful situations. Our study aims to test the effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among individuals experiencing unstable housing in France - a majority of whom are migrant or have sought asylum. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among persons with psychological distress and experiencing unstable housing, in comparison to enhanced care as usual (eCAU). Participants (N = 210) will be randomised to two parallel groups: eCAU or eCAU plus the stepped-care program. The main study outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). DISCUSSION: This randomised controlled trial will contribute to a better understanding of effective community-based scalable strategies that can help address the mental health needs of persons experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, whose needs are high yet who frequently have limited access to mental health care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this randomised trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT05033210.

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21. FINDINGS: Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04980326.

Are we equally at risk of changing smoking behavior during a public health crisis? Impact of educational level on smoking from the TEMPO cohort.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic as a public health crisis has led to a significant increase in mental health difficulties. Smoking is strongly associated with mental health conditions, which is why the pandemic might have influenced the otherwise decline in smoking rates. Persons belonging to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups may be particularly affected, both because the pandemic has exacerbated existing social inequalities and because this group was more likely to smoke before the pandemic. We examined smoking prevalence in a French cohort study, focusing on differences between educational attainment. In addition, we examined the association between interpersonal changes in tobacco consumption and educational level from 2018 to 2021. METHODS: Using four assessments of smoking status available from 2009 to 2021, we estimated smoking prevalence over time, stratified by highest educational level in the TEMPO cohort and the difference was tested using chi2 test. We studied the association between interpersonal change in smoking status between 2018 and 2021 and educational attainment among 148 smokers, using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Smoking prevalence was higher among those with low education. The difference between the two groups increased from 2020 to 2021 (4.8-9.4%, p < 0.001). Smokers with high educational level were more likely to decrease their tobacco consumption from 2018 to 2021 compared to low educated smokers (aOR = 2.72 [1.26;5.89]). CONCLUSION: Current findings showed a widening of the social inequality gap in relation to smoking rates, underscoring the increased vulnerability of persons with low educational level to smoking and the likely inadequate focus on social inequalities in relation to tobacco control policies during the pandemic.

Views and experiences of migrants and stakeholders involved in social and health care for migrants in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major and potentially long-lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing across populations worldwide. However, these impacts were not felt equally, leading to an exacerbation of health inequalities, especially affecting vulnerable populations such as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Aiming to inform the adaptation and implementation of psychological intervention programmes, the present study investigated priority mental health needs in this population group. METHODS: Participants were adult asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (ARMs) and stakeholders with experience in the field of migration living in Verona, Italy, and fluent in Italian and English. A two-stage process was carried out to examine their needs using qualitative methods including free listing interviews and focus group discussions, according to Module One of the DIME (Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation) manual. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analyses approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants (12 stakeholders, 7 ARMs) completed the free listing interviews and 20 participants (12 stakeholders and 8 ARMs) attended focus group discussions. Salient problems and functions that emerged during free listing interviews were discussed during the focus group discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ARMs struggled with many everyday living difficulties in their resettlement country due to social and economic issues, revealing a strong influence of contextual factors in determining mental health. Both ARMs and stakeholders highlighted a mismatch between needs, expectations and interventions as factors that may hamper proper implementation of health and social programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings could help in the adaptation and implementation of psychological interventions targeting the needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants aiming to find a match between needs, expectations, and the corresponding interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number 2021-UNVRCLE-0106707, February 11 2021.

COVID-19 and common mental health symptoms in the early phase of the pandemic: An umbrella review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: There remains uncertainty about the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health. This umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the association between the pandemic and common mental disorders. We qualitatively summarized evidence from reviews with meta-analyses of individual study-data in the general population, healthcare workers, and specific at-risk populations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic search was carried out in 5 databases for peer-reviewed systematic reviews with meta-analyses of prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms during the pandemic published between December 31, 2019 until August 12, 2022. We identified 123 reviews of which 7 provided standardized mean differences (SMDs) either from longitudinal pre- to during pandemic study-data or from cross-sectional study-data compared to matched pre-pandemic data. Methodological quality rated with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist scores (AMSTAR 2) instrument was generally low to moderate. Small but significant increases of depression, anxiety, and/or general mental health symptoms were reported in the general population, in people with preexisting physical health conditions, and in children (3 reviews; SMDs ranged from 0.11 to 0.28). Mental health and depression symptoms significantly increased during periods of social restrictions (1 review; SMDs of 0.41 and 0.83, respectively) but anxiety symptoms did not (SMD: 0.26). Increases of depression symptoms were generally larger and longer-lasting during the pandemic (3 reviews; SMDs depression ranged from 0.16 to 0.23) than those of anxiety (2 reviews: SMDs 0.12 and 0.18). Females showed a significantly larger increase in anxiety symptoms than males (1 review: SMD 0.15). In healthcare workers, people with preexisting mental disorders, any patient group, children and adolescents, and in students, no significant differences from pre- to during pandemic were found (2 reviews; SMD's ranging from -0.16 to 0.48). In 116 reviews pooled cross-sectional prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms ranged from 9% to 48% across populations. Although heterogeneity between studies was high and largely unexplained, assessment tools and cut-offs used, age, sex or gender, and COVID-19 exposure factors were found to be moderators in some reviews. The major limitations are the inability to quantify and explain the high heterogeneity across reviews included and the shortage of within-person data from multiple longitudinal studies. CONCLUSIONS: A small but consistent deterioration of mental health and particularly depression during early pandemic and during social restrictions has been found in the general population and in people with chronic somatic disorders. Also, associations between mental health and the pandemic were stronger in females and younger age groups than in others. Explanatory individual-level, COVID-19 exposure, and time-course factors were scarce and showed inconsistencies across reviews. For policy and research, repeated assessments of mental health in population panels including vulnerable individuals are recommended to respond to current and future health crises.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 mortality in people with pre-existing mental disorders: an umbrella review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a serious health risk, especially in vulnerable populations. Even before the pandemic, people with mental disorders had worse physical health outcomes compared to the general population. This umbrella review investigated whether having a pre-pandemic mental disorder was associated with worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Following a pre-registered protocol available on the Open Science Framework platform, we searched Ovid MEDLINE All, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science up to the 6th of October 2021 for systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 on people with pre-existing mental disorders. The following outcomes were considered: risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection, risk of severe illness, COVID-19 related mortality risk, risk of long-term physical symptoms after COVID-19. For meta-analyses, we considered adjusted odds ratio (OR) as effect size measure. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment with the AMSTAR 2 tool have been done in parallel and duplicate. RESULTS: We included five meta-analyses and four narrative reviews. The meta-analyses reported that people with any mental disorder had an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.09-2.69), severe illness course (OR from 1.32 to 1.77, 95%CI between 1.19-1.46 and 1.29-2.42, respectively) and COVID-19 related mortality (OR from 1.38 to 1.52, 95%CI between 1.15-1.65 and 1.20-1.93, respectively) as compared to the general population. People with anxiety disorders had an increased risk of SAR-CoV-2 infection, but not increased mortality. People with mood and schizophrenia spectrum disorders had an increased COVID-19 related mortality but without evidence of increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness. Narrative reviews were consistent with findings from the meta-analyses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: As compared to the general population, there is strong evidence showing that people with pre-existing mental disorders suffered from worse physical health outcomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and may therefore be considered a risk group similar to people with underlying physical conditions. Factors likely involved include living accommodations with barriers to social distancing, cardiovascular comorbidities, psychotropic medications and difficulties in accessing high-intensity medical care.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: Study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.

Coping with COVID: risk and resilience factors for mental health in a German representative panel study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. METHODS: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n = 6684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress [(PD; measured via Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4)] from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. RESULTS: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M = 2.45) and 2021 (M = 2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M = 1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, and asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, and optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of pre-pandemic data stresses the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discussed.

Commentary: Promoting positive mental health during pregnancy-reflections on Lähdepuro et al. (2023).

Lähdepuro et al. performed a sound large-scale prospective pregnancy cohort study showing an association between positive maternal prenatal mental health and a reduced risk of developing clinically diagnosed childhood mental and behavioral disorders. Beneficial effects were also observed among the offspring of mothers experiencing mental health problems before and during pregnancy. The pathbreaking findings of Lähdepuro et al. set the stage for future research to shed more light on the so far almost unknown (neuro)biological mechanisms underlying the link between positive maternal prenatal mental health and child outcomes. More knowledge is needed about prenatal psychological and social factors enacting the potential of positive mental health as a resilience source buffering against maternal prenatal mental health problems and by this protecting subsequent child development. This also calls for further development, optimization, and evaluation of positive mental health-enhancing interventions during pregnancy, especially for future mothers having mental health problems.

Impact of work arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in France.

•Symptoms of anxiety/depression were found in 28.8% of the participants at least once.•Unemployment and financial difficulties were associated with anxiety/depression.•Targeted mental health support could lessen mental health impact.

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of internet-based psychological interventions for healthcare workers with psychological distress: Study protocol for the RESPOND healthcare workers randomised controlled trial.

Background and aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers' mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods: We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire - Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies. Registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs. Materials and methods: Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health). Results: We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels. Conclusions: In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Resilience-enhancing interventions for antepartum depressive symptoms: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Antepartum depressive symptoms (ADS) are highly prevalent and may affect the mother and child. Cognitive-behavioural therapy and interpersonal therapy are effective psychological interventions for depression. However, low adherence and high attrition rates in studies of prevention and treatment of antepartum depression suggest that these approaches might not be entirely suitable for women with mild/moderate ADS. Considering the protective association between resilience and ADS, women with ADS might benefit more from interventions focusing on promotion of mental well-being and resilience. AIMS: We aimed to provide an overview of studies evaluating the effectiveness of antepartum resilience-enhancing interventions targeting the improvement of ante- and postpartum depressive symptoms. We also investigated whether these interventions improve resilience and resilience factors in the peripartum period. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review, using PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they utilised a randomised controlled trial or quasi-experimental design, studied pregnant women with ADS, and implemented psychological interventions that (a) aimed to reduce maternal ADS and/or prevent peripartum major depression, and (b) addressed one or more psychological resilience factors. RESULTS: Five of the six included cognitive-behavioural therapy interventions and all four mindfulness-based interventions were effective in reducing peripartum depressive symptoms and/or the incidence of depression. However, the methodological quality of most of the included studies was low to moderate. Only three studies assessed change in resilience factors. CONCLUSIONS: Resilience-enhancing interventions might be beneficial for mental well-being of pregnant women with ADS, although more rigorously designed intervention studies are needed.

Scalable psychological interventions for Syrian refugees in Europe and the Middle East: STRENGTHS study protocol for a prospective individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization's (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ and its group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ and SbS with Syrian refugees. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

Protocol for individual participant data meta-analysis of interventions for post-traumatic stress.

INTRODUCTION: Several evidence-based treatments are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet a substantial proportion of patients do not respond or dropout of treatment. We describe the protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aimed at assessing the effectiveness and adverse effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for treating PTSD. Additionally, we seek to examine moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This IPD-MA includes randomised controlled trials comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy interventions for PTSD. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs and CENTRAL will be screened up till the 11th of January 2021. The target population is adults with above-threshold baseline PTSD symptoms on any standardised self-report measure. Trials will only be eligible if at least 70% of the study sample have been diagnosed with PTSD by means of a structured clinical interview. The primary outcomes of this IPD-MA are PTSD symptom severity, and response rate. Secondary outcomes include treatment dropout and adverse effects. Two independent reviewers will screen major bibliographic databases and past reviews. Authors will be contacted to contribute their participant-level datasets. Datasets will be merged into a master dataset. A one-stage IPD-MA will be conducted focusing on the effects of psychological and pharmacological interventions on PTSD symptom severity, response rate, treatment dropout and adverse effects. Subsequent analyses will focus on examining the effect of moderators and predictors of treatment outcomes. These will include sociodemographic, treatment-related, symptom-related, resilience, intervention, trauma and combat-related characteristics. By determining the individual factors that influence the effectiveness of specific PTSD treatments, we will gain insight into personalised treatment options for PTSD. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Specific ethics approval for an IPD-MA is not required as this study entails secondary analysis of existing anonymised data. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations.