A scoping review of psychosocial interventions delivered by non-mental health workers following disaster events.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Tracey Varker, Julia Fredrickson, James Agathos, Phoebe Howlett, Alexandra Howard, Meaghan L O'Donnell
{"title":"A scoping review of psychosocial interventions delivered by non-mental health workers following disaster events.","authors":"Tracey Varker, Julia Fredrickson, James Agathos, Phoebe Howlett, Alexandra Howard, Meaghan L O'Donnell","doi":"10.1002/jts.23127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individuals exposed to disasters are at high risk of developing mental health conditions, yet the availability of mental health practitioners is often limited. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the quality of the evidence for psychosocial interventions that can be delivered by non-mental health workers in the context of disasters. Searches were performed in PsycInfo, EMBASE, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, CINAHL, Global Health, PubMed, and SCOPUS, from inception through to November 2024, to identify studies of relevance. Only studies investigating psychosocial interventions that could be delivered by non-mental health clinicians in a non-hospital or clinic setting were included. In total, 69 primary intervention studies examining 27 universal interventions and 10 indicated interventions were identified. Studies were rated on quality and risk of bias, and GRADE was used to rank the evidence for each intervention. For universal interventions, no study had an evidence rating above \"very low\" to support confidence in a significant impact on clinical outcomes. For indicated interventions, Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Self-Help Plus (SH+) had an evidence rating of \"high\" in the postdisaster context, and Skills for Life Adjustment and Resilience (SOLAR) had a \"low\" evidence rating; the remaining interventions were given \"very low\" ratings. Despite the high number of psychosocial interventions that target postdisaster distress, very few have been tested using rigorous methodologies with large samples. Future research should include methodologies that test interventions at scale and recognize the impacts of compounding disasters.</p>","PeriodicalId":17519,"journal":{"name":"Journal of traumatic stress","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of traumatic stress","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.23127","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individuals exposed to disasters are at high risk of developing mental health conditions, yet the availability of mental health practitioners is often limited. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the quality of the evidence for psychosocial interventions that can be delivered by non-mental health workers in the context of disasters. Searches were performed in PsycInfo, EMBASE, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, CINAHL, Global Health, PubMed, and SCOPUS, from inception through to November 2024, to identify studies of relevance. Only studies investigating psychosocial interventions that could be delivered by non-mental health clinicians in a non-hospital or clinic setting were included. In total, 69 primary intervention studies examining 27 universal interventions and 10 indicated interventions were identified. Studies were rated on quality and risk of bias, and GRADE was used to rank the evidence for each intervention. For universal interventions, no study had an evidence rating above "very low" to support confidence in a significant impact on clinical outcomes. For indicated interventions, Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Self-Help Plus (SH+) had an evidence rating of "high" in the postdisaster context, and Skills for Life Adjustment and Resilience (SOLAR) had a "low" evidence rating; the remaining interventions were given "very low" ratings. Despite the high number of psychosocial interventions that target postdisaster distress, very few have been tested using rigorous methodologies with large samples. Future research should include methodologies that test interventions at scale and recognize the impacts of compounding disasters.

对灾难事件后由非精神卫生工作者提供的社会心理干预进行范围审查。
遭受灾害的个人患精神疾病的风险很高,但精神卫生从业人员的可用性往往有限。本次范围审查的目的是检查在灾害情况下非精神卫生工作者可提供的社会心理干预措施的证据质量。从成立到2024年11月,在PsycInfo、EMBASE、Family & Society Studies Worldwide、CINAHL、Global Health、PubMed和SCOPUS中进行了检索,以确定相关性研究。仅包括调查非医院或诊所环境中非精神卫生临床医生可提供的心理社会干预措施的研究。总共确定了69项初级干预研究,检查了27项普遍干预措施和10项指示性干预措施。对研究的质量和偏倚风险进行评级,并使用GRADE对每种干预措施的证据进行排序。对于普遍干预措施,没有研究的证据评级高于“非常低”,以支持对临床结果产生重大影响的信心。对于指示性干预措施,问题管理+ (PM+)和自助+ (SH+)在灾后情境下的证据评级为“高”,而生活适应技能和恢复力(SOLAR)的证据评级为“低”;其余干预措施的评级为“非常低”。尽管有大量针对灾后痛苦的心理社会干预措施,但很少有采用大样本的严格方法进行过测试。未来的研究应包括测试大规模干预措施的方法,并认识到复合灾害的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
125
期刊介绍: Journal of Traumatic Stress (JTS) is published for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress , the official publication for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on biopsychosocial aspects of trauma. Papers focus on theoretical formulations, research, treatment, prevention education/training, and legal and policy concerns. Journal of Traumatic Stress serves as a primary reference for professionals who study and treat people exposed to highly stressful and traumatic events (directly or through their occupational roles), such as war, disaster, accident, violence or abuse (criminal or familial), hostage-taking, or life-threatening illness. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, review papers, commentaries, and, from time to time, special issues devoted to a single topic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信