Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T22:02:19.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Alethea Desrosiers*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University , Providence, RI, USA
Natalia Piñeros-Leaño
Affiliation:
School of Economics, Los Andes University, Bogota, Colombia
Maria Paula Jimenez
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
Samantha Plezia
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
Maria Pineros-Leano
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Alethea Desrosiers; Email: alethea_desrosiers@brown.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Approximately three million Venezuelan migrants (VMs) currently reside in Colombia. Many are in need of mental health services but face significant difficulties accessing services. To improve service access and engagement, we culturally adapted and pilot tested an evidence-based mental health intervention integrated within entrepreneurship training in a community setting for VM youth in Colombia. Using participatory research and qualitative methods approaches, we explored the program’s acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. We recruited and enrolled 67 VM youth (aged 18–30) living in Bogotá, Colombia, who participated in piloting the intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a subset of these participants (n = 16) at post-intervention to explore the intervention’s acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. Two bilingual research assistants analyzed qualitative data using thematic network analysis. Findings suggested that VM youth viewed the integrated intervention as acceptable and appropriate, noting that it was helpful to have a “safe space” to discuss difficult emotions. They also noted challenges to engaging in the intervention, including transportation time and balancing other life responsibilities with intervention participation. Findings point to the importance of engaging community member participants in the adaptation and testing process of mental health interventions to increase intervention fit with the target population.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Supplementary material: File

Desrosiers et al. supplementary material

Desrosiers et al. supplementary material
Download Desrosiers et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.9 KB

Author comment: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R0/PR1

Comments

December 20, 2024

Dear Editorial Board,

I would like to submit the attached manuscript, entitled “Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia”, for consideration in Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health.

The content of this manuscript has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere in the same form in any language beyond this submission to Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. All authors have approved the manuscript for submission, there are no competing interests, conflicts of interest, or issues relating to journal policies. This study has received Institutional Review Board approval.

I will be serving as the corresponding author for this manuscript, and I will inform the coauthors about the status of the manuscript, including editorial decisions and content of revisions. Thank you for considering this manuscript for publication in Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards,

Alethea Desrosiers, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Brown University

Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior

345 Blackstone Blvd

Providence, RI 02906

alethea_desrosiers@brown.edu

Review: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

I am a colleague of Dr. Derosier and Dr. Pineros-Leono (we know each other from working at the same institution).

Comments

1. The first time I read the abstract, I thought that only 16 VM youth participated in the pilot. Later in the manuscript, you state that the current study includes phases 5-8 of ADAPT-ITT (i.e., it includes the pilot). So I would modify the abstract to describe the piloting and the exit interviews. E.g.: “Methods: We recruited and enrolled 67 VM youth (aged 18-30) living in Bogotá, Colombia, to participate in the the two-week (10 day) pilot intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 of these participants after they completed the program to explore the intervention’s acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility.”

2. "We opted for entrepreneurship training as the delivery setting for Jovenes

Capibara in order to also address the economic difficulties faced by VM youth in Colombia and the limited opportunities to participate in occupational or job skills training programs" - this sentence kind of implies that your research team is bringing additional resources/programs to address VM’s economic difficulties that they would otherwise not have received. But you simply embedded your MH program within an existing economic program (the Rebel School) that would have existed regardless of Jovenes Capibara, right? Would it be more accurate to say “We opted for entrepreneurship training as the delivery setting for Jovenes Capibara because we believed VM experiencing economic difficulties would be particularly at risk for MH problems” or “We opted for entrepreneurship training as the delivery setting for Jovenes Capibara because the Rebel School was already successful at identifying VM youth and getting them to complete multi-day programs” or something like that?

3. “Because a previous adaptation was conducted for Colombian youth with histories of forced displacement (Pineros-Leano et al., 2024), the present study focused primarily on phases 5-8 of the ADAPT-ITT framework.” Why was it not necessary to undergo phases 1-4 with the VM population in mind?

4. "In prior work, we culturally adapted and piloted an evidence-based mental health

intervention for Colombian youth with histories of forced displacement" - The first time I read the manuscript, I didn’t catch that the previous adaptation was for Colombian youth and the current adaptation is for Venezuelan youth. Can you add a sentence or phrase to call more attention to this? Why are Colombian youth being displaced (are they internally displaced)? Can you add justification for why Venezuelan youth need their own adaptation and can’t simply participate in the intervention as it was adapted for Colombians?

5. “Youth community members were selected based on their prior experience completing Jovenes Capibara training and serving as facilitators of the prior Jovenes Capibara pilot trial with Colombian youth.” - Were the youth community members Colombian or Venezuelan?

6. The methods section was confusing to me the first time I read it. I think it would help to move the “Adaptation” section to before “Recruitment,” because I think the adaptation happened before the pilot, right? It would be good to add more differentiation between pilot participants and interview participants, too. So you can update headings as follows:

- Recruitment -> Pilot Recruitment

- Sample and Procedures -> Pilot Sample and Procedures

- Data Collection -> Interview Sample and Procedures

- Data Analysis -> Interview Analysis

7. Why did you not stratify interview participants by gender?

8. What software was used for analysis? Were data units defined before coding was conducted, or did each coder independently create data units? I ask because calculating IRR can be problematic or difficult if, for example, one coder applies a code to only a fragment of a sentence while the other coder applies the same code to the whole paragraph.

9. Can you add stats about attendance? A histogram of participants' number of sessions attended would be insightful.

9. In future studies you could consider capturing demographic characteristics of all pilot participants, and participants' attendance rates, to have more accurate data on participant demographics. I’m left with questions, e.g., you had much higher female participation in interviews but what was the gender breakdown in the pilot? Did most of the men drop out after the first couple sessions, and if so, why? Should your interview sampling plan have been designed to investigate this (i.e. by oversampling males)?

10. “Regarding the year of migration to Colombia, most participants (93.75%) migrated between 2018 and 2022.” - This is not a very helpful stat since the data was collected in 2022 and eligibility criteria was that they had to have moved to Colombia after 2016.

11. I suggest adding more context about cultural differences between Venezuela and Colombia to the intro. As someone who knows little about the region, I was surprised that VM quotes showed that they appreciated being with people “who know what you like to eat, the music they listen to is practically the same, the way of talking is the same” - I incorrectly assumed that cultural differences would be minimal.

12. In the results you refer to “peer facilitators”. What are the differences between “youth community member facilitators,” “Rebel School facilitators,” (the terms used in the Methods section) and “peer facilitators”?

13. You may consider defining acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness earlier in the manuscript, if word count allows.

14. “This study used a community-based participatory process” - I don’t feel that a CBPR approach comes out very strongly through this paper. You pay consider removing this reference to CBPR or explaining more the steps that were taken to be community engaged. Getting post-intervention feedback from end users is relatively low on the “participation” spectrum in my opinion.

15. “Additionally, continuing to leverage task sharing approaches by training non-specialist, peer facilitators” - to what extent did the present study already do this? It’s not entirely clear to me. You could explain, for example, if in the current study, each group had 1 Rebel School facilitator and 1 peer facilitator, that future studies need to explore how to have 2 peer facilitators instead.

16. Can you give any examples of cultural adaptations made before piloting to better fit VM youth?

17. “Finally, further adaptations will be required to meet the cultural and contextual needs of other marginalized populations in Colombia, such as Indigenous and Afro-Colombian youth.... While findings from the current study are promising, further research via a fully-powered randomized controlled trial is needed to determine the effectiveness of the adapted intervention...in more diverse settings (i.e., rural areas) with diverse populations (i.e., Indigenous, Afro-Colombian).” Are you planning to create different versions/adaptations of the intervention for different populations? Or have one version that is appropriate for all these diverse populations and test it in an RCT that includes everyone?

This is an incomplete list of minor/grammatical problems; please do another check for grammar and punctuation issues:

1. In “Over 7.7 million Venezuelan migrants (VMs) and refugees have departed the nation,” change from “have departed” to “had departed”

2. Change “legal status acquisition” to “challenges of acquiring legal status”, “difficulties of living without legal status,” or something that turns the phrase into a clear negative.

3. Change “The intervention, called Jovenes Capibara” to “Our adapted intervention, called Jovenes Capibara”

4. “The intervention, called Jovenes Capibara, incorporates core components of interpersonal and cognitive behavior therapies and mindfulness techniques” - put “mindfulness techniques” before “core components of...” to make sentence less ambiguous.

5. “strong evidence-base and potential relevance for other youth populations” - remove hyphen, change “for” to “to”

6. Bogotá Colombia - needs comma

7. The sentence “To better address the mental health needs of VM youth...” is too long and clunky; I suggest removing “integrated within entrepreneurship training” and explaining the way it’s integrated into entrepreneurship training in the subsequent sentence.

8. “to provide the delivery platform” - change to “who provided the delivery platform”

9. “By cultural adapting and then integrating” -> “By culturally adapting and then integrating”

10. “After verifying participants eligibility,” add apostrophe to “participants”

11. “Once consented,” -> “One the participant consented,”

12. Do not use YRI acronym; spell out name

13. Delete word “drawing”

14. “which were primarily related to emotional, interpersonal and entrepreneurship skills” - changed to “which were primarily related to emotions, interpersonal relationships, and entrepreneurship”

Review: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

I have no competing interests to declare.

Comments

This is a very well written and interesting paper exploring response to an intervention for a minoritised group (VM migrants) within Colombia. I think the work is important and novel (I was particularly interested to read about cultural adaptation of intervention for the target VM population), and as such the comments are focused on trying to strengthen and enhance the contribution that this paper makes.

I did not have any significant recommendations for improvements, I thought it was very thorough. My only comment would be perhaps in the abstract and in the paper – drawing out the barriers to the intervention being successful (results) a little more clearly as explicitly linked to the implications of this. Whilst there is thoughtful consideration given to the potential for hybrid or online versions in the discussion – having sufficient data and cost of this may also be a barrier so I wondered about how feasible this would be. I think there is unlikely to be an ideal solution so perhaps a reflection on who may be missing and why as linked to who participated and why would nuance this finding further? It is a minor point however, as the paper stands on its own merit without this.

Recommendation: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Dr. Desrosiers,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing regarding your manuscript titled “Acceptability of a Culturally-Adapted, Evidence-Based Mental Health Intervention for Venezuelan Migrant Youth Residing in Colombia” that was submitted to the Cambridge Prism: Global Mental Health journal.

After a thorough review by our peer reviewers, we have received feedback on your manuscript. Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 have provided several insightful comments and suggestions that we believe will help improve the quality of your work. We kindly ask that you carefully review their feedback, make the necessary revisions, and then resubmit the updated manuscript for further evaluation.

Please ensure that all changes are clearly marked or summarized in your resubmission, along with a response to each of the reviewer comments. If you feel that any of the suggestions are not applicable, please provide a brief explanation as to why.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript and thank you for your continued contribution to the field.

Should you have any questions or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Best regards,

Sara Romero

Decision: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R1/PR6

Comments

March 21, 2025

Dear Editorial Board,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript, entitled “Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia”, for consideration in Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. Please find the responses to the editor comments below. All revisions in the manuscript are indicated by track changes.

Thank you again for considering this manuscript for publication in Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards,

Alethea Desrosiers, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Brown University

Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior

345 Blackstone Blvd

Providence, RI 02906

alethea_desrosiers@brown.edu

Review: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

I personally know MP and AD from my time at Boston College

Comments

Thank you for revising the paper. I think it reads much clearer now! This is an excellent study and almost ready for publication.

1. “This included adding examples to the manual about the experience of migration and how migrating can bring about positive and negative feelings and experiences. Specifically, during session 6, participants were encouraged to think about the positive and negative aspects of migrating to a new country (or for Colombian youth, a new city/region within the same country).”

This paper describes the process of adapting the Colombian version of Jovenes Capybara for VM youth, but it sounds like the resulting manual also had content for Colombian youth. Can you explain why this is? Please make sure the manuscript is clear about this, too.

2. “We opted for entrepreneurship training as the delivery setting for Jovenes Capibara in order to also address the economic difficulties faced by VM youth in Colombia and the limited opportunities to participate in occupational or job skills training programs… By cultural adapting and then integrating an evidence-based mental health intervention into an existing delivery setting, barriers to care experienced by VM youth in Colombia may be reduced; and both mental health and economic challenges can be addressed simultaneously (which streamlines service delivery).”

My issue with this sentence is I think it overstates the research team’s role in addressing VM youth’s economic difficulties. VM youth would have been able to participate the Rebel School even if the researchers did not conduct this study. This sentence seems to give credit to the researchers for “addressing” the VM youths’ economic issues, when it was really the Rebel School who was addressing them. My suggestion would be to rewrite this sentence to say, “We opted for entrepreneurship training as the delivery setting for Jovenes Capibara knowing how important it is for VM youth in Colombia to have their economic difficulties addressed, given their limited opportunities to participate in occupational or job skills training programs.”

3. “Additionally, continuing to leverage task sharing approaches by training non-specialist, peer facilitators to deliver the intervention could increase scalability and the potential for Jovenes Capibara to reach rural and other underserved regions (van Ginnekan et al. 2013), as well as other populations of underserved and/or displaced youth (e.g., non-urban youth).”

Given your response to my question about task-sharing, I now see why this paragraph confused me before. I suggest changing it as follows: “Additionally, expanding to train peer facilitators in other regions, such as rural and other underserved areas (van Ginnekan et al. 2013), would increase scalability and the potential for Jovenes Capibarato reach other populations. By further leveraging task-sharing, underserved and/or displaced youth in rural as well as urban areas can be reached.”

4. “We have not yet made plans to adapt the intervention for other populations. The goal of this comment was to acknowledge that additional adaptations would be needed to increase the cultural and contextual fit and relevance for different populations, such as indigenous youth in Colombia. We do not recommend that one version is appropriate for all populations.”

I raised my question because your conclusion simultaneously suggested that new manuals will need to be adapted for diverse populations, but also that diverse populations should be included in a large future RCT. This seems contradictory. If you do not think one version (and thus, one RCT) would be appropriate for everyone, I suggest revising this sentence: “further research via a fully-powered randomized controlled trial is needed to determine the effectiveness of the adapted intervention on mental health outcomes and in more diverse settings (i.e., rural areas) with diverse populations (i.e., Indigenous, Afro-Colombian)” and remove “with diverse populations (i.e., Indigenous, Afro-Colombian)”.

My only remaining comments are small writing issues.

1. Abstract- change “Using participatory research and qualitative methods approaches” to “Using participatory and qualitative methods”

2. Impact statement- change “but accessing to formal services” to “but access to formal services”

3. Change “The current study used community based participatory methods” to “The current study used participatory methods”

4. Intro- change “legal status acquisition” to “difficulties acquiring legal status”

5. Delete “by increasing its acceptability and cultural appropriateness”

6. Change “exploring factors” to “identifying and addressing factors”

7. Change “By cultural adapting” to “By culturally adapting”

8. In “barriers to care experienced by VM youth in Colombia may be reduced;” change the semicolon to a comma

9. Methods- “During phase 7, we held a 2-week (10 day) training with youth community member facilitators” – change community member facilitators to “peer facilitators” for consistency

10. “After verifying participants eligibility” – add apostrophe to participants

11. “trained enumerators from the data collection agency explained …. Research Assistants (RAs) then asked…” Were trained enumerators and RAs the same people? If so, change to “trained enumerators from the data collection agency (who we refer to as Research Assistants)”. If not, write “Research Assistants (RAs) from [the university, or wherever they may have come from].”

12. change “an equivalent of 5 USD gift card” to “a gift card equivalent to 5 USD”

13. Change “Data unites” to “Data units”

14. Results – Add %s to attendance rates, i.e.: “Twenty-nine VM youth attended the first day of the program (43% of enrolled participants). Attendance for the remaining sessions ranged from 26-33 participants per day (39-49%).”

Recommendation: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Acceptability of a culturally-adapted, evidence-based mental health intervention for Venezuelan migrant youth residing in Colombia — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.