ReviewConflict and health2026
The impacts of peace and conflict resolution interventions on mental health and psychological well-being: a systematic review.
Review in Conflict and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies have examined the impact of armed conflict on mental health. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on how peace and conflict resolution interventions influence the mental health and well-being of conflict-affected communities.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review across multiple databases and identified studies evaluating the effects of peace and conflict resolution interventions on mental health and well-being from 1990 to 2026. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was conducted.
resultsThe search yielded 6,360 records, of which 15 were included. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (n = 6), and only two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Most studies were conducted in African countries, targeted the community level, and were implemented by government agencies or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Overall, studies yield mixed mental health outcomes. On the one hand, rehabilitation programmes, reparations support, financial aid, and reconciliation media show positive effects on psychological well-being. However, truth and reconciliation interventions were associated with negative outcomes, as they exacerbate distress, posttraumatic stress disorder, and anxiety, particularly for survivors. Most studies were limited by a focus on short-term effects and lack of a comparison group.
conclusionThe findings present a mixed picture: while rehabilitation and economic interventions show mental health benefits, truth and reconciliation efforts were associated with psychological harms. More longitudinal studies with larger samples and rigorous designs are needed to assess long-term effects. Recognising both the mental health risks and benefits of peace and conflict interventions is essential to ensure they support not only political stability but also psychological recovery and resilience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.