As evidence supporting the effectiveness of mental health and psychosocial interventions grows, more research is needed to understand optimal strategies for improving their implementation in diverse contexts. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation of a multicomponent psychosocial intervention intended to promote well-being among refugee, migrant and host community women in three diverse contexts in Ecuador and Panamá. The objective of this study is to describe the relationships among implementation determinants, strategies and outcomes of this community-based psychosocial intervention. The five implementation strategies used in this study included stakeholder engagement, promoting intervention adaptability, group and community-based delivery format, task sharing and providing incentives. We identified 10 adaptations to the intervention and its implementation, most of which were made during pre-implementation. Participants (n = 77) and facilitators (n = 30) who completed qualitative interviews reported that these strategies largely improved the implementation of the intervention across key outcomes and aligned with the study’s intervention and implementation theory of change models. Participants and facilitators also proposed additional strategies for improving reach, implementation and maintenance of this community-based psychosocial intervention.

In low-resource settings, valid mental health screening tools for non-specialists can be used to identify patients with psychiatric disorders in need of critical mental health care. The Mental Wellness Tool-13 (mwTool-13) is a 13-item screener for identifying adults at risk for common mental disorders (CMDs) alcohol-use disorders (AUDs), substance-use disorders (SUD), severe mental disorders (SMDs), and suicide risk (SR). The mwTool-13 is administered in two steps, specifically, only those who endorse any of the initial three questions receive the remaining ten questions. We evaluated the performance of mwTool-13 in South Africa against a diagnostic gold standard. We recruited a targeted, gender-balanced sample of adults, aged ≥18 years at primary and tertiary healthcare facilities in Eastern Cape Province. Of the 1885 participants, the prevalence of CMD, AUD, SMD, SR, and SUD was 24.4%, 9.5%, 8.1%, 6.0%, and 1.6%, respectively. The mwTool-13 yielded high sensitivities for CMD, SMD, and SR, but sub-optimal sensitivities for AUD and SUD (56.7% and 64.5%, respectively). Including a single AUD question in the initial question set improved the tool’s performance in identifying AUD and SUD (sensitivity > 70%), while maintaining brevity, face-validity, and simplicity in the South African setting.

Most family violence research has been conducted in high-income countries, although family violence rates are higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and outcomes more severe. Given the strong associations of family violence with substance use and mental illness, the aim of this systematic review was to examine interventions that targeted familial violence and at least one other condition of substance use or mental illness to determine effective treatments in LMICs. We conducted a systematic review of interventions that addressed family violence and mental illness or substance use. A committee of three researchers independently screened titles and abstracts and conducted full-text eligibility assessments. Two researchers conducted a risk of bias assessment. Data were extracted using a structured spreadsheet and narratively synthesized. Our search identified 29 articles produced from 19 studies conducted in 13 LMICs. Most (n = 15) studies randomized to study condition. Lack of blinding was the most common threat. The external validity of studies was generally poor. Fourteen studies had a primary intervention target of family violence, mental health, substance use, economic improvement, or HIV. None of the studies showed improvements in all intervention areas. Child maltreatment was less likely to be addressed than intimate partner violence (IPV). Targeted interventions for substance and mental health mostly improved primary outcomes, although they were less effective in reducing IPV. Evidence-based treatments must be rigorously evaluated before innovations in implementation can occur. Interventions overwhelmingly addressed IPV victimization and should consider how to work with couples and include men and children.

Community-based psychosocial interventions are key elements of mental health and psychosocial support; yet evidence regarding their effectiveness and implementation in humanitarian settings is limited. This study aimed to assess the appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility and safety of conducting a cluster randomized trial evaluating two versions of a group psychosocial intervention. Nine community clusters in Ecuador and Panamá were randomized to receive the standard version of the Entre Nosotras intervention, a community-based group psychosocial intervention co-designed with community members, or an enhanced version of Entre Nosotras that integrated a stress management component. In a sample of 225 refugees, migrants and host community women, we found that both versions were safe, acceptable and appropriate. Training lay facilitators to deliver the intervention was feasible. Challenges included slow recruitment related to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, high attrition due to population mobility and other competing priorities, and mixed psychometric performance of psychosocial outcome measures. Although the intervention appeared promising, a definitive cluster randomized comparative effectiveness trial requires further adaptations to the research protocol. Within this pilot study we identified strategies to overcome these challenges that may inform adaptations. This comparative effectiveness design may be a model for identifying effective components of psychosocial interventions.

In the wake of George Floyd's killing by police in Minneapolis and the global response inspired by Black Lives Matter, it is time for the field of global mental health to reexamine how we have acknowledged and addressed racism in our institutions, our research, and our mental health services. In solidarity with street level responses, this is an important opportunity to understand and collaboratively respond to public demand for systemic change. To respond effectively, it is vital to (1) be aware of the colonial history that influences today's practices, and move forward with anti-colonial and anti-racist actions; (2) identify where and why diversity and representation are lacking in the global mental health workforce, then follow steps to combat these disparities; and (3) work with communities and institutions to end both police violence and structural violence.