Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39623389›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2024

Integration of psychological interventions in multi-sectoral humanitarian programmes: a systematic review.

Jacqueline N Ndlovu, Jonna Lind, Andrés Barrera Patlán, Nawaraj Upadhaya, Marx R Leku, Josephine Akellot, Morten Skovdal, Jura L Augustinavicius, Wietse A Tol

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jacqueline N NdlovuGlobal Health Section, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 9, Copenhagen, 1353, Denmark. Jacqueline.ndlovu@sund.ku.dk.
Jonna LindARQ Library, ARQ National Psychotrauma Centre, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Andrés Barrera PatlánDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Nawaraj UpadhayaGlobal Health Section, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 9, Copenhagen, 1353, Denmark.
Marx R LekuHealthRight International, New York, USA.
Josephine AkellotHealthRight International, New York, USA.
Morten SkovdalSection of Health Services Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jura L Augustinavicius *HealthRight International, New York, USA.
Wietse A Tol *Global Health Section, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 9, Copenhagen, 1353, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvery year, millions of people are affected by humanitarian crises. With a growing population of people affected, the need for coordination and integration of services aiming to improve the effectiveness of mental health and psychosocial support also grows. In this study, we examine how psychological interventions in humanitarian settings globally have been implemented through integration into programming outside of formal healthcare delivery through multisectoral integration.

methodsA comprehensive search of six databases and reference checking was undertaken in 2022. We included studies focusing on implementation strategies and implementation outcomes of multi-sectoral, integrated psychological interventions, with no year limits. We extracted data using the software Covidence, and used the software to manage screening and reviewing processes. All studies were critically appraised for quality and rigor using the mixed-methods appraisal tool.

resultsEight studies were included in total. We found that interventions targeted conflict affected, displaced and disaster recovering populations. The interventions demonstrated moderate success in reducing psychological distress and enhancing disaster preparedness. We found that key implementation outcomes investigated and prioritised include acceptability, feasibility, and relevance. The studies reported on integration processes that involved task shifting primarily, with an emphasis on different formats of adaptation, partnership creation and capacity development to maximise effectiveness of integrated interventions.

conclusionOverall, there is little research being done to rigorously document the processes and experiences of integrating psychological interventions with non-health interventions. This could be an indication that, while multisectoral integration may be more common in practice, little research is being done or reported in this area formally. There is an urgent need for further research into integrated multi-sectoral interventions. This research should aim to understand how social, cultural, and environmental contexts in different ways, and to different degrees, affect what is acceptable and feasible to deliver and how these ultimately influence the impact of integrated interventions.

Indexed as

Psychosocial InterventionAltruismDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHumansMental Health ServicesRelief WorkHumanitarian settingsIntegrationMulti-sectorialPsychological interventions

Identifiers

PMID39623389
PMCPMC11613475

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.