The hallmarks of childhood abuse and neglect: a systematic review

Background: Studies on the impacts of child maltreatment (CM) have been conducted in diverse areas. Mechanistic understanding of the complex interplay between factors is lacking. Hallmarking is an approach which identifies common factors across studies and highlights the most robust findings. Objectives: In a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, we addressed the following questions: 1) What are the hallmarks associated with exposure to CM across the bio-ecological spectrum? 2) What is the strength of evidence to support each hallmark? 3) What are the gaps that future research should address? Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out to find relevant systematic reviews or meta-analyses. 269 articles were read in full and 178 articles, encompassing more than 6000 original papers, were included in the final synthesis. All reviews were independently rated for quality by at least 2 reviewers using AMSTAR-2. Results: Of 178 review articles, 6 were rated as high quality (all meta-analyses) and 46 were rated as medium quality. Most were from high income countries. Conclusions: Based on the most commonly reported high-quality research findings we propose that the hallmarks of exposure to child maltreatment are: Increased risk of psychopathology; Increased risk of obesity; Increased risk of high- risk sexual behaviours, Increased risk of smoking; and Increased risk of child maltreatment in children with disabilities. Research gaps include a lack of focus on complexity and resilience. Little can be concluded about directions of causality or mechanisms. Adequately powered prospective studies are required to move the field forward

Correction: Effectiveness of a scalable, remotely delivered stepped-care intervention to reduce symptoms of psychological distress among Polish migrant workers in the Netherlands: study protocol for the RESPOND randomised controlled trial

Following the publication of the original article [1], the authors identified that the sentence under the subheading Sample size was incorrect. The correct sentence is given below. The incorrect sentence is: Power calculations suggested a minimum sample size of 74 per group (power = 0.80, α = 0.05, two-sided). The correct sentence is: Power calculations suggested a minimum sample size of 74 per group (power = 0.95, α = 0.05, two-sided). The original article [1] has been corrected

Addressing mental health problems among persons without stable housing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a randomised trial. RESPOND – France

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on population-wide mental health and well-being. Although people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage may be especially vulnerable, they experience barriers in accessing mental health care. To overcome these barriers, the World Health Organization (WHO) designed two scalable psychosocial interventions, namely the web-based Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and the face-to-face Problem Management Plus (PM+), to help people manage stressful situations. Our study aims to test the effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among individuals experiencing unstable housing in France – a majority of whom are migrant or have sought asylum. Methods This is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a stepped-care program using DWM and PM + among persons with psychological distress and experiencing unstable housing, in comparison to enhanced care as usual (eCAU). Participants (N = 210) will be randomised to two parallel groups: eCAU or eCAU plus the stepped-care program. The main study outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). Discussion This randomised controlled trial will contribute to a better understanding of effective community-based scalable strategies that can help address the mental health needs of persons experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, whose needs are high yet who frequently have limited access to mental health care services

Effectiveness of a scalable, remotely delivered stepped-care intervention to reduce symptoms of psychological distress among Polish migrant workers in the Netherlands: study protocol for the RESPOND randomised controlled trial

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the mental health of international migrant workers (IMWs). IMWs experience multiple barriers to accessing mental health care. Two scalable interventions developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) were adapted to address some of these barriers: Doing What Matters in times of stress (DWM), a guided self-help web application, and Problem Management Plus (PM +), a brief facilitator-led program to enhance coping skills. This study examines whether DWM and PM + remotely delivered as a stepped-care programme (DWM/PM +) is effective and cost-effective in reducing psychological distress, among Polish migrant workers with psychological distress living in the Netherlands. Methods The stepped-care DWM/PM + intervention will be tested in a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) among adult Polish migrant workers with self-reported psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; K10 > 15.9). Participants (n = 212) will be randomized into either the intervention group that receives DWM/PM + with psychological first aid (PFA) and care-as-usual (enhanced care-as-usual or eCAU), or into the control group that receives PFA and eCAU-only (1:1 allocation ratio). Baseline, 1-week post-DWM (week 7), 1-week post-PM + (week 13), and follow-up (week 21) self-reported assessments will be conducted. The primary outcome is psychological distress, assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). Secondary outcomes are self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), resilience, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. In a process evaluation, stakeholders’ views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DWM/PM + will be evaluated. Discussion To our knowledge, this is one of the first RCTs that combines two scalable, psychosocial WHO interventions into a stepped-care programme for migrant populations. If proven to be effective, this may bridge the mental health treatment gap IMWs experience

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of WHO psychological interventions in migrant populations resettled in Italy: study protocol for the RESPOND randomized controlled trial

Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire—Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health

Effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of internet-based psychological interventions for healthcare workers with psychological distress: Study protocol for the RESPOND healthcare workers randomised controlled trial

The dataset that supports the findings of this study are archived in the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid data repository e‐cienciaDatos in https://doi.org/10.21950/HN1HNOBackground and aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has challenged health services worldwide, with a worsening of healthcare workers’ mental health within initial pandemic hotspots. In early 2022, the Omicron variant is spreading rapidly around the world. This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care programme of scalable, internet-based psychological interventions for distressed health workers on self-reported anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods: We present the study protocol for a multicentre (two sites), parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio), analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Healthcare workers with psychological distress will be allocated either to care as usual only or to care as usual plus a stepped-care programme that includes two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization: A guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress) and a five-session cognitive behavioural intervention (Problem Management Plus). All participants will receive a single-session emotional support intervention, namely psychological first aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire – Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score at 21 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, cost impact and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: This study is the first randomised trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for health workers into one stepped-care programme. Results will inform occupational and mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery strategies. Registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980326The RESPOND project was funded under Horizon 2020 -the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014– 2020) (grant number: 101016127), and the work of MF-N was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship of the ISCIII (CD20/ 00036

Effectiveness of a mental health stepped-care programme for healthcare workers with psychological distress in crisis settings: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background Evidence-based mental health interventions to support healthcare workers (HCWs) in crisis settings are scarce. Objective To evaluate the capacity of a mental health intervention in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms in HCWs, relative to enhanced care as usual (eCAU), amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted an analyst-blind, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We recruited HCWs with psychological distress from Madrid and Catalonia (Spain). The intervention arm received a stepped-care programme consisting of two WHO-developed interventions adapted for HCWs: Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5 weeks and was delivered remotely by non-specialist mental health providers. HCWs reporting psychological distress after DWM completion were invited to continue to PM+. The primary endpoint was self-reported anxiety/depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale) at week 21. Findings Between 3 November 2021 and 31 March 2022, 115 participants were randomised to stepped care and 117 to eCAU (86% women, mean age 37.5). The intervention showed a greater decrease in anxiety/depression symptoms compared with eCAU at the primary endpoint (baseline-adjusted difference 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7; standardised effect size 0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions Brief stepped-care psychological interventions reduce anxiety and depression during a period of stress among HCWs. Clinical implications Our results can inform policies and actions to protect the mental health of HCWs during major health crises and are potentially rapidly replicable in other settings where workers are affected by global emergencies

Co-RESPOND: An ongoing IPD Meta-Analyses of European Cohorts on Mental Health and Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has put both individuals as well as  health care systems under stress. However, it is not yet clear which  factors influence mental health, and the identification of vulnerable  groups is still a research priority (Ahrens et al., 2021; Riehm et al.,  2021). RESPOND is an EU Horizon 2020-funded project with the aim prepare  the European mental health care system for future pandemics.   Aims Utilizing mental health data from before the pandemic until mid-2022,  this project has several aims. Firstly, to identify groups that are  vulnerable to mental health problems and understand their trajectories.  Secondly, to identify protective factors to mental health during the pandemic. Thirdly, to investigate resilience operationalized as stressor  reactivity and determine psychological resilience factors.   Methods Rather than utilising summary data, individual participant data (IPD)  meta-analyses will be done that allow for the use of advanced  statistical methods as compared to conventional meta-analyses of  aggregated data. For the assessment of data harmonization potential, the  Maelstrom guidelines (Bergeron et al., 2018) are used.  Results:  Nine cohorts from five different European countries (Belgium, France,  Germany, Spain, the Netherlands) have been identified that will  contribute to joint analyses. Datasets are currently transformed in  accordance to jointly agreed rules for data 1harmonization and  anonymization.    Discussion and outlook Retrospective data  harmonization requires meticulous efforts, and thoughtful deliberation  to ensure that GDPR requirements are met. However, this project will  help to make optimal use of existing datasets and allow for more general  conclusions on the trajectories of mental health and resilience across Europe.</p

Schematic illustration of the range of appraisals constituting ‘positive appraisal’.

PAS (marked in gray) according to Positive Appraisal Style Theory of Resilience (PASTOR). Adapted from Kalisch and colleagues [8] © Cambridge University Press 2015, reproduced with permission.</p