A2 Refereed review article in a scientific journal

Self-Help Plus for refugees and asylum seekers: an individual participant data meta-analysis




AuthorsKaryotaki E, Sijbrandij M, Purgato M, Acarturk C, Lakin D, Bailey D, Peckham E, Uygun E, Tedeschi F, Wancata J, Augustinavicius J, Carswell K, Välimäki M, van Ommeren M, Koesters M, Popa M, Leku MR, Anttila M, Churchill R, White RG, Al-Hashimi S, Lantta T, Au TRS, Klein T, Tol WA, Cuijpers P, Barbui C

PublisherBMJ PUBLISHING GROUP

Publication year2023

JournalBMJ Mental Health

Journal name in sourceBMJ MENTAL HEALTH

Journal acronymBMJ MENTAL HEALTH

Article number e300672

Volume26

Issue1

Number of pages8

eISSN2755-9734

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2023-300672

Web address https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/26/1/e300672

Self-archived copy’s web addresshttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/180937091


Abstract

Question

Refugees and asylum seekers are at high risk of mental disorders due to various stressors before, during and after forceful displacement. The WHO Self-Help Plus (SH+) intervention was developed to manage psychological distress and a broad range of mental health symptoms in vulnerable populations. This study aimed to examine the effects and moderators of SH+ compared with Enhanced Care as Usual (ECAU) in reducing depressive symptoms among refugees and asylum seekers.

Study selection and analysis

Three randomised trials were identified with 1795 individual participant data (IPD). We performed an IPD meta-analysis to estimate the effects of SH+, primarily on depressive symptoms and second on post-traumatic stress, well-being, self-identified problems and functioning. Effects were also estimated at 5-6 months postrandomisation (midterm).

Findings

There was no evidence of a difference between SH+ and ECAU+ in reducing depressive symptoms at postintervention. However, SH+ had significantly larger effects among participants who were not employed (β=1.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.00) and had lower mental well-being levels (β=0.02, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.05). At midterm, SH+ was significantly more effective than ECAU in improving depressive symptoms (β=-1.13, 95% CI -1.99 to -0.26), self-identified problems (β=-1.56, 95% CI -2.54 to -0.59) and well-being (β=6.22, 95% CI 1.60 to 10.90).

Conclusions

Although SH+ did not differ significantly from ECAU in reducing symptoms of depression at postintervention, it did present benefits for particularly vulnerable participants (ie, unemployed and with lower mental well-being levels), and benefits were also evident at midterm follow-up. These results are promising for the use of SH+ in the management of depressive symptoms and improvement of well-being and self-identified problems among refugees and asylum seekers.


Downloadable publication

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.





Last updated on 2024-26-11 at 21:27