5 research outputs found
Feasibility and acceptability of Problem Management Plus (PM+) among Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Switzerland: a mixed-method pilot randomized controlled trial
Background: Syrian refugees in Switzerland face several barriers in accessing mental health care. Cost-effective psychological interventions are urgently needed to meet the mental health needs of refugees. Problem Management Plus (PM+) is an evidence-based, psychological intervention delivered by trained non-specialist âhelpersâ. Objective: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of PM+ among Syrian refugees in Switzerland. Methods: We conducted a single-blind pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with Syrian refugees impaired by psychological distress (K10 > 15 and WHODAS 2.0 > 16). Participants were randomized to PM+ or Enhanced Treatment As Usual (ETAU). Participants were assessed at baseline, and 1 week and 3 months after the intervention, and completed measures indexing mental health problems and health care usage. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with different stakeholders. Results: N = 59 individuals were randomized into PM+ (n = 31) or ETAU (n = 28). N = 18 stakeholders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers for the implementation of PM+. Retention rates in the trial (67.8%) and mean intervention attendance (M = 3.94 sessions, SD = 1.97) were high. No severe events related to the study were reported. These findings indicate that the trial procedures and PM+ were feasible, acceptable and safe. Conclusions: The findings support the conduct of a definitive RCT and show that PM+ might have the potential to be scaled-up in Switzerland. The importance, as well as the challenges, of implementing and scaling-up PM+ in high-income countries, such as Switzerland, are discussed
Scalable psychological interventions for Syrian refugees in Europe and the Middle East: STRENGTHS study protocol for a prospective individual participant data meta-analysis
Introduction: The World Health Organization's (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ and its group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ and SbS with Syrian refugees.
Methods and analysis: Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list.
Ethics and dissemination: Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals
Scalable psychological interventions for Syrian refugees in Europe and the Middle East: STRENGTHS study protocol for a prospective individual participant data meta-analysis
Introduction The World Health Organizationâs (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ andâits group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ andâSbS with Syrian refugees. Methods and analysis Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list. Ethics and dissemination Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals
Feasibility and acceptability of Problem Management Plus (PM+) among Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Switzerland: a mixed-method pilot randomized controlled trial
Background: Syrian refugees in Switzerland face several barriers in accessing mental health care. Cost-effective psychological interventions are urgently needed to meet the mental health needs of refugees. Problem Management Plus (PM+) is an evidence-based, psychological intervention delivered by trained non-specialist 'helpers'.
Objective: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of PM+ among Syrian refugees in Switzerland.
Methods: We conducted a single-blind pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with Syrian refugees impaired by psychological distress (K10 > 15 and WHODAS 2.0 > 16). Participants were randomized to PM+ or Enhanced Treatment As Usual (ETAU). Participants were assessed at baseline, and 1 week and 3 months after the intervention, and completed measures indexing mental health problems and health care usage. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with different stakeholders.
Results: N = 59 individuals were randomized into PM+ (n = 31) or ETAU (n = 28). N = 18 stakeholders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers for the implementation of PM+. Retention rates in the trial (67.8%) and mean intervention attendance (M = 3.94 sessions, SD = 1.97) were high. No severe events related to the study were reported. These findings indicate that the trial procedures and PM+ were feasible, acceptable and safe.
Conclusions: The findings support the conduct of a definitive RCT and show that PM+ might have the potential to be scaled-up in Switzerland. The importance, as well as the challenges, of implementing and scaling-up PM+ in high-income countries, such as Switzerland, are discussed.
Keywords: Mental health; asylums seekers; feasibility; lay-provider; problem management plus; refugees; task-shifting
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field