RESUMO
Colombia hosts the largest number of refugees and migrants fleeing the humanitarian emergency in Venezuela, many of whom experience high levels of displacement-related trauma and adversity. Yet, Colombian mental health services do not meet the needs of this population. Scalable, task-sharing interventions, such as Group Problem Management Plus (Group PM+), have the potential to bridge this gap by utilizing lay workers to provide the intervention. However, the current literature lacks a comprehensive understanding of how and for whom Group PM+ is most effective. This mixed methods study utilized data from a randomized effectiveness-implementation trial to examine the mediators and moderators of Group PM+ on mental health outcomes. One hundred twenty-eight migrant and refugee women in northern Colombia participated in Group PM+ delivered by trained community members. Patterns in moderation effects showed that participants in more stable, less marginalized positions improved the most. Results from linear regression models showed that Group PM+-related skill acquisition was not a significant mediator of the association between session attendance and mental health outcomes. Participants and facilitators reported additional possible mediators and community-level moderators that warrant future research. Further studies are needed to examine mediators and moderators contributing to the effectiveness of task-shared, scalable, psychological interventions in diverse contexts.
Assuntos
Saúde Mental , Refugiados , Migrantes , Humanos , Colômbia , Refugiados/psicologia , Feminino , Venezuela , Adulto , Migrantes/psicologia , Migrantes/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto JovemRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled a global paradigm shift in how psychological support is delivered. Remote delivery, through phone and video calls, is now commonplace around the world. However, most adoption of remote delivery methods is occurring without any formal training to ensure safe and effective care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this applied qualitative study was to determine practitioners' experiences of rapidly adapting to deliver psychological support remotely during COVID-19. DESIGN: We used a pragmatic paradigm and applied approach to gain perspectives related to the feasibility and perceived usefulness of synchronous remote psychological support, including views on how practitioners can be prepared. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted remotely with 27 specialist and non-specialist practitioners in Nepal, Perú and the USA. Interviewees were identified through purposeful sampling. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Respondents revealed three key themes: (i) Remote delivery of psychological support raises unique safety concerns and interference with care, (ii) Remote delivery enhances skills and expands opportunities for delivery of psychological support to new populations, and (iii) New training approaches are needed to prepare specialist and non-specialist practitioners to deliver psychological support remotely. CONCLUSIONS: Remote psychological support is feasible and useful for practitioners, including non-specialists, in diverse global settings. Simulated remote role plays may be a scalable method for ensuring competency in safe and effective remotely-delivered care.