This review links practice, funding, and evidence for interventions for mental health and psychosocial wellbeing in humanitarian settings. We studied practice by reviewing reports of mental health and psychosocial support activities (2007–10); funding by analysis of the financial tracking service and the creditor reporting system (2007–09); and interventions by systematic review and meta-analysis. In 160 reports, the five most commonly reported activities were basic counselling for individuals (39%); facilitation of community support of vulnerable individuals (23%); provision of child-friendly spaces (21%); support of community-initiated social support (21%); and basic counselling for groups and families (20%). Most interventions took place and were funded outside national mental health and protection systems. 32 controlled studies of interventions were identified, 13 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that met the criteria for meta-analysis. Two studies showed promising effects for strengthening community and family supports. Psychosocial wellbeing was not included as an outcome in the meta-analysis, because its definition varied across studies. In adults with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed beneficial effects for several interventions (psychotherapy and psychosocial supports) compared with usual care or waiting list (standardised mean difference [SMD] −0.38, 95% CI −0.55 to −0.20). In children, meta-analysis of four RCTs failed to show an effect for symptoms of PTSD (−0.36, −0.83 to 0.10), but showed a beneficial effect of interventions (group psychotherapy, school-based support, and other psychosocial support) for internalising symptoms (six RCTs; SMD −0.24, −0.40 to −0.09). Overall, research and evidence focuses on interventions that are infrequently implemented, whereas the most commonly used interventions have had little rigorous scrutiny.

Introduction:The Working Group on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support was convened as part of the 2009 Harvard Humanitarian Action Summit. The Working Group chose to focus on ethical issues in mental health and psychosocial research and programming in humanitarian settings. The Working Group built on previous work and recommendations, such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings.Objectives:The objective of this working group was to address one of the factors contributing to the deficiency of research and the need to develop the evidence base on mental health and psychosocial support interventions during complex emergencies by proposing ethical research guidelines. Outcomes research is vital for effective program development in emergency settings, but to date, no comprehensive ethical guidelines exist for guiding such research efforts.Methods:Working Group members conducted literature reviews which included peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and relevant guidelines on the following topics: general ethical principles in research, cross-cultural issues, research in resource-poor countries, and specific populations such as trauma and torture survivors, refugees, minorities, children and youth, and the mentally ill. Working Group members also shared key points regarding ethical issues encountered in their own research and fieldwork.Results:The group adapted a broad definition of the term “research”, which encompasses needs assessments and data gathering, as well as monitoring and evaluation. The guidelines are conceptualized as applying to formal and informal processes of assessment and evaluation in which researchers as well as most service providers engage. The group reached consensus that it would be unethical not to conduct research and evaluate outcomes of mental health and psychosocial interventions in emergency settings, given that there currently is very little good evidence base for such interventions. Overarching themes and issues generated by the group for further study and articulation included: purpose and benefits of research, issues of validity, neutrality, risk, subject selection and participation, confidentiality, consent, and dissemination of results.Conclusions:The group outlined several key topics and recommendations that address ethical issues in conducting mental health and psychosocial research in humanitarian settings. The group views this set of recommendations as a living document to be further developed and refined based on input from colleagues representing different regions of the globe with an emphasis on input from colleagues from low-resource countries.

Wietse Tol and colleagues lay out a a consensus-based research agenda for mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings.

Background: Humanitarian crises are associated with an increase in mental disorders and psychological distress. Despite the emerging consensus on intervention strategies in humanitarian settings, the field of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in humanitarian settings lacks a consensus-based research agenda. Methods: From August 2009 to February 2010, we contacted policymakers, academic researchers, and humanitarian aid workers, and conducted nine semistructured focus group discussions with 114 participants in three locations (Peru, Uganda, and Nepal), in both the capitals and remote humanitarian settings. Local stakeholders representing a range of academic expertise (psychiatry, psychology, social work, child protection, and medical anthropology) and organizations (governments, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and UN agencies) were asked to identify priority questions for MHPSS research in humanitarian settings, and to discuss factors that hamper and facilitate research. Results: Thematic analyses of transcripts show that participants broadly agreed on prioritized research themes in the following order: (1) the prevalence and burden of mental health and psychosocial difficulties in humanitarian settings, (2) how MHPSS implementation can be improved, (3) evaluation of specific MHPSS interventions, (4) the determinants of mental health and psychological distress, and (5) improved research methods and processes. Rather than differences in research themes across countries, what emerged was a disconnect between different groups of stakeholders regarding research processes: the perceived lack of translation of research findings into actual policy and programs; misunderstanding of research methods by aid workers; different appreciation of the time needed to conduct research; and disputed universality of research constructs. Conclusions: To advance a collaborative research agenda, actors in this field need to bridge the perceived disconnect between the goals of “relevance” and “excellence.” Research needs to be more sensitive to questions and concerns arising from humanitarian interventions, and practitioners need to take research findings into account in designing interventions. (Harv Rev Psychiatry 2012;20:25–36.)