Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-92wsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T06:24:45.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mental health trajectories and Peer Refugee Helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2025

Michalis Lavdas*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
Gro Mjeldheim Sandal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
Marit Sijbrandij
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Trynke Hoekstra
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences and Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tormod Bøe
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
*
Corresponding author: Michalis Lavdas; Email: michail.lavdas@uib.no
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Peer Refugee Helpers (PRHs) support peers in humanitarian settings, which may influence their own mental health. This longitudinal study examined anxiety and depression trajectories among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece, focusing on how PRH status (paid/unpaid) and sense of coherence influence trajectory membership. The study included 176 adult, PRHs and non-helpers. The following scales were administered three times at ~4-month intervals: Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Social Provisions Scale (SPS-24), Sense of Coherence (SOC-13), Perceived Ability to Cope With Trauma (PACT) and Brief Trauma Questionnaire (BTQ). Using latent growth mixture modeling, we identified two depression (high and low) and three anxiety (high, moderate and low) trajectories. The adjusted logistic and multinomial regression models indicated that unpaid PRHs were significantly less likely to follow a low depression trajectory (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, p = 0.037), while paid PRHs were more likely to follow a low anxiety trajectory (OR = 3.17, p = 0.009). Higher SOC was associated with low depression (OR = 1.03, p = 0.012) and low anxiety trajectories (OR = 1.06, p = 0.002). Our findings suggest PRH mental health may be associated with working conditions, including financial compensation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Descriptive statistics at baseline

Figure 1

Figure 1. (A) The individual scores for GAD-7 (indicated by lines) as a function of the three time points in each of the three identified trajectories (presented in three separate panels in the figure). Similarly, (B) shows, in the same manner, the individual scores for PHQ-9, presented in two separate panels, corresponding to the two identified trajectories.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (A) The mean GAD-7 scores across three time points for each of the three identified anxiety trajectories: low, moderate and high. The y-axis indicates the scores on the GAD-7 scale. (B) The mean PHQ-9 scores over three time points for the two identified depression trajectories: low and high.

Figure 3

Table 2. Odds ratios for membership to the low depression trajectory for bivariate and fully adjusted models

Figure 4

Table 3. Odds ratios for membership to the low and moderate anxiety trajectory for bivariate and fully adjusted models

Supplementary material: File

Lavdas et al. supplementary material

Lavdas et al. supplementary material
Download Lavdas et al. supplementary material(File)
File 5.9 MB

Author comment: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear editor,

We are glad to submit our paper to the Cambride Prisms: Global Mental Health journal, titled “Mental Health Trajectories and Peer Refugee Helper Engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Greece”. In this paper we identify anxiety and depression trajectories among refugees and asylum seekers investigating how paid or non-paid engagement in peer helper roles among refugees and sense of coherence, could contribute to their own mental health. Our paper is the first to examine longitudinally Peer Refugee Helpers (PRHs) and hopefully it can be important for policy recommendations in the field of global mental health. It further builds on research already published in your journal and we hope to continue this important dialogue through this outlet.

We are available for any further clarifications.

Best,

Michalis Lavdas

PhD Research Fellow, University of Bergen

Review: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Overall a really interesting and valuable paper. I have a few suggestions:

1. Clarity of language: high/low depression/anxiety trajectory sounds like more of a research term than a clinical one, and may not be clear to readers what it’s referring to. E.g in lines 29 and 30, an explanation could be added, such as “i.e. to score more highly on a measure of depression”. As a clinician reading this at the beginning of the paper, I wasn’t clear if high depression trajectory meant high likelihood of developing depression, or high likelihood of worsening symptoms over time.

2. The aims of the study don’t mention traumatic events and their relation to the trajectories - this is an interesting element that it should be set out at the beginning of the paper as well as in the results/discussion.

3. In the introduction (line 79) you mention that being a peer refugee helper is protective to mental health (as well as having some adverse effects), and imply that that mechanism may be via improving Sense of Coherence, yet I note that in your results you haven’t compared SOC scores between helpers and non-helpers. Readers would be interested to know whether this is the case.

4. It would be important to acknowledge in the paper that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between SOC and particularly depression, although likely also anxiety. Both the high depression and high anxiety trajectory groups commence the study with above diagnostic threshold symptoms, making it impossible to know whether the SOC preceded or followed the depression/anxiety. I think it’s quite likely that a depressive illness could lead to a reduction in SOC, given the negative cognitions etc.

5. Clarity of language in lines 460 and 461: “Second, we found that payment among PRHs contributes to their anxiety and depression scores” - this sounds to me as if the payment is making the anxiety/depression worse rather than the other way around!

Review: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

1. Summary and Overall Impression

This manuscript offers a well-executed and timely contribution to global mental health and humanitarian research. Through longitudinal analysis of depression and anxiety trajectories among Peer Refugee Helpers (PRHs) and non-helpers in Greece, the authors generate valuable evidence around the impacts of payment status, sense of coherence (SOC), gender, trauma exposure, and social support on mental health outcomes.

The study’s methodological rigour, particularly its use of Latent Growth Mixture Modelling (LGMM), is commendable. The authors are careful and reflexive in describing their tools, limitations, and context. Of particular strength is the meaningful engagement of multilingual research assistants with lived experience, as well as the thoughtful inclusion of a stakeholder reference group. These elements enhance the paper’s ethical and applied relevance.

The paper’s framing, while already compelling, could be further strengthened by deepening the conceptual treatment of labour precarity, expanding the discussion of intersectional gendered risk, and providing additional detail on ethical and trauma-informed research processes. These suggestions are offered with the aim of supporting both this study and the broader field.

2. Prioritised Major Comments

Essential Revisions (to address in this paper)

Clarify the relationship between payment and mental health outcomes

The finding that unpaid PRHs are more likely to follow high depression trajectories is central to the paper. However, it remains unclear whether this is directly attributable to payment or whether payment serves as a proxy for broader dimensions of protection, formality, and organisational support.

Suggestion: Clarify how “unpaid” was operationalised (e.g. were these formal volunteer roles, informal community roles, roles without defined support or expectations?). Consider briefly situating payment within a wider context of humanitarian labour conditions (e.g. contract type, supervision, access to services).

Strengthen the framing of gender as a structural and intersecting factor

The analysis shows that women were less likely to follow low-symptom trajectories, but the discussion frames gender largely as an individual demographic risk factor. This misses the opportunity to situate these findings in relation to structural gender inequalities—including exposure to sexual harassment, caregiving pressures, or constrained mobility in the humanitarian workplace.

Suggestion: Reframe gender as a system of power, shaped by intersectional factors such as displacement status, age, and caregiving roles. Consider referencing relevant humanitarian gender analyses or the concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) to anchor this shift.

Acknowledge and briefly interpret loss to follow-up

The authors note that participants lost to follow-up had higher depression scores at baseline, which raises questions about potential underestimation of symptom severity or risk in the final trajectories.

Suggestion: Expand slightly on how this differential attrition may have affected results, and whether any sensitivity analyses or interpretive caveats were applied.

Recommended Enhancements (optional additions)

Reposition SOC as relational and modifiable

The paper treats SOC primarily as an internal resource, but findings suggest that SOC may be shaped by supervision, training, safety, and peer support.

Suggestion: Consider briefly repositioning SOC as a context-sensitive and modifiable construct, which can be strengthened through program design and organisational support.

Provide clearer programmatic implications

The conclusion is strong, and also could go further in identifying what a “minimally ethical” PRH engagement might look like in practice. This is a strength of the paper that could be made more actionable.

Suggestion: A short paragraph summarising practical implications, such as the importance of role clarity, paid contracts, mental health support, and safeguarding, would enhance the paper’s utility to implementers.

Comment on the translation process and ethical inclusion of research assistants

The involvement of research assistants with lived experience is a methodological strength. However, it is unclear how their wellbeing was supported, and how the translation process addressed potential cultural stigma, affirming mental health language, or other identity-based risks.

Suggestion: If feasible, briefly note whether trauma-informed supports (e.g. debriefing, flexibility) were in place for research assistants, and whether mental health-related terminology was discussed and adapted for affirming language. This is not to suggest a flaw, but rather to encourage good practice documentation that others can learn from.

Note: If considerations such as multi-identity stigma were outside the scope of this study, it is perfectly valid to simply note that future work might explore these dimensions more deeply.

3. Minor and Stylistic Suggestions

Abstract clarity: Consider rephrasing “unpaid PRHs were associated with increased probability of following a high depression trajectory (OR = 0.55)” as this implies lower odds. A clearer phrasing might be: “Unpaid PRHs were significantly less likely to follow a low depression trajectory.”

Terminology: Consider balancing the use of legal classifications (“refugees and asylum seekers”) with more inclusive phrasing such as “people with lived experience of displacement.”

Figures: Ensure that trajectory plots clearly label high/moderate/low categories and reference clinical thresholds where relevant.

Language tightening: Some sections (particularly citations to Lavdas et al. 2024) could be trimmed slightly for clarity and flow.

Ethical procedures: It would be helpful to briefly note whether any referral pathways were in place for participants who disclosed distress.

4. Final Recommendation

This is a thoughtful and impactful study, grounded in methodological rigour and ethical intent. The suggestions offered here are intended to support the authors in strengthening the framing, expanding ethical transparency, and improving clarity around working conditions and programmatic implications. These are relatively minor revisions that, once addressed, will significantly enhance the paper’s contribution to research and practice.

Recommendation: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R0/PR4

Comments

Thank you for submitting this well-written and timely manuscript. Reviewers commended the study’s methodological rigor, ethical approach, and meaningful engagement of research assistants with lived experience. As you will see in their detailed comments, both reviewers have provided some suggestions for improving the manuscript including strengthening the framing around gender, addressing loss to follow-up and clarifying some of the conceptual elements of the paper.

Decision: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear editor,

We thank you again for your response for the constructive feedback we received from the peer reviewers. We are looking forward to clarify any further comments and for our manuscript to be considered for publication.

We made sure that we respond in a poin-by-point fashion, including the line numbers and the extracts from the text as indicated in our response to the decision letter. We further indicated with yellow highlight the changes in the main document uploaded.

Kind regards,

Michalis Lavdas

Review: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Many thanks for outlining your changes so clearly. I’m satisfied that all of my comments have been resolved. I have just a couple of minor points relating to the new additions:

Lines 105-108:

I suggest using the words “personal experiences of traumatic events” rather than “own”, it just reads a little better.

Lines 451-456:

I would add that PRHs may have experienced adversity prior to as well as during their journeys, as in my experience many people choose to leave their countries because of potentially traumatic events experienced there.

Line 455:

I would use the phrase “worsen mental health” rather than “increase poor mental health” as it is clearer on reading.

Line 458:

I would suggest simply deleting “including anxiety and depression symptoms” because quite often in PTSD, treating the PTSD directly leads to resolution of anxiety and depressive symptoms, and therefore those symptoms wouldn’t necessarily be directly addressed in practice (even though they would improve).

Recommendation: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R1/PR8

Comments

Thank you for your thorough revision of the manuscript. The reviewer noted that you have adequately addressed all of their major comments from the previous round, and I agree that these changes have strengthened the paper. At this stage, there are a few minor edits for your consideration. We kindly ask that you review and incorporate these minor changes as appropriate before we proceed further.

Decision: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R2/PR10

Comments

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your time and the reviewer’s helpful comments that helped our manuscript. We are submitting the clean updated version explaining our work further in the point-by-point response. We have included a graphical abstract as well in the appropriate technical format. We remain available for any further clarification. We have included the main document with any changes highlighted in yellow.

Best,

Michalis Lavdas

Review: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R2/PR11

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

No further comments, thank you!

Recommendation: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R2/PR12

Comments

All comments have been thoroughly addressed. Thank you for your thoughtful and careful revisions, and for submitting your work to Global Mental Health.

Decision: Mental health trajectories and peer refugee helper engagement, among Afghan, Iranian and Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Greece — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.