ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the mental well-being of Syrian refugees and identify their coping mechanisms and pathways towards integration into new communities.DesignQualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews.Setting and participantsAdult Syrian refugees (>18 years old) currently residing in South East of England.Results12 participants (3 women and 9 men) took part in the study, all were born in Syria and the majority (n=9) were over 45 years of age. Our findings show that Syrian refugees face constant challenges as they try to integrate into a new society. Loss of and separation from loved ones as well as the nostalgia for the homeland were often cited as a source of psychological distress that created an overwhelming sense of sadness. Participants reported that they struggled for connectedness due to cultural difference and the problematic nature of rapidly formed migrant communities in their new setting. They believed in ‘being their own doctor’ and turning to faith, ritual and nature for healing and comfort. Taboo and stigma around mental health and language barriers were cited as barriers to accessing mental healthcare services.ConclusionPast experiences and present challenges frame Syrian refugees’ sense of well-being, impact use of healthcare and risk future mental health problems. It is hoped that this study will act as a catalyst for further research on this vulnerable group to promote integration, community support and culturally sensitive mental health services.

Background: Clinical management guidelines (CMGs) can be useful tools to guide clinician’s decision making and enable consistent evidence-based high-quality care. Here, we assessed whether their objective quality has improved over time by considering CMGs for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and from different timepoints for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a rapid literature review, quality assessment and focus group consultation. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the CMGs. In total, six COVID-19 treatments were selected to assess the responsiveness of a subset of guidelines and their updates to 20th November 2020. We ran two sessions of focus groups with patient advocates to elicit their views on guideline development. Results: We included 37 COVID-19, six SARS, and four MERS CMGs. Evidence appraisals in CMGs generally focused on novel drugs rather than basic supportive care; where evidence for the latter was provided it was generally of a low quality. Most CMGs had major methodological flaws and there was no evidence of improvement in quality over time. CMGs scored lowest in the following AGREE-II domains: scope and purpose, editorial independence, stakeholder engagement, and rigour of development. Of the COVID-19 CMGs, only eight included specific guidance for the management of elderly patients and only ten for high-risk groups; a further eight did not specify the target patient group. Early in the pandemic, multiple guidelines recommended unproven treatments and whilst in general findings of major clinical trials were eventually adopted, this was not universally the case. Conclusions: The quality of most CMGs produced in coronaviridae outbreaks is poor and we have found limited evidence of improvement over time, highlighting that current development frameworks must be improved. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020167361 (17/02/2020)

ObjectiveTo assess the responsiveness and quality of clinical management guidelines (CMGs) in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 and determine whether this has improved over time.DesignRapid literature review, quality assessment and focus group consultation.Data Sources– Google and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception to 6th June 2020.This was supplemented with hand searches of national and international public health agency and infectious disease society websites as well as directly approaching clinical networks in regions where few CMGs had been identified via the primary search.Eligibility CriteriaCMGs for the treatment of COVID-19/SARS/MERS providing recommendations on supportive care and/or specific treatment.MethodsData extraction was performed using a standardised form. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the CMGs. Six COVID-19 treatments were selected to assess the responsiveness of a subset of guidelines and their updates to 20th November 2020. We ran two sessions of focus groups with patient advocates to elicit their views on guideline development.ResultsWe included 37 COVID-19, six SARS, and four MERS CMGs. Evidence appraisals in CMGs generally focused on novel drugs rather than basic supportive care; where evidence for the latter was provided it was generally of a low quality. Most CMGs had major methodological flaws (only two MERS-CoV and four COVID-19 CMGs were recommended for use by both reviewers without modification) and there was no evidence of improvement in quality over time. CMGs scored lowest in the following AGREE-II domains: scope and purpose, editorial independence, stakeholder engagement, and rigour of development. Of the COVID-19 CMGs, only eight included specific guidance for the management of elderly patients and only ten for high-risk groups; a further eight did not specify the target patient group at all. Early in the pandemic, multiple guidelines recommended unproven treatments and whilst in general findings of major clinical trials were eventually adopted, this was not universally the case. Eight guidelines recommended that use of unproven agents should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Patient representatives expressed concern about the lack of engagement with them in CMG development and that these documents are not accessible to non-experts.ConclusionThe quality of most CMGs produced in coronaviridae outbreaks is poor and we have found no evidence of improvement over time, highlighting that current development frameworks must be improved. There is an need to strengthen the evidence base surrounding basic supportive care and develop methods to engage patients in CMG development from the beginning in outbreak settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020167361

No abstract

Background The Syrian conflict has resulted in an estimated 5.3 million registered Syrian refugees in various parts of the world. Evidence suggests that these individuals are at considerable risk of developing common mental disorders. This study aimed to explore the mental wellbeing of Syrian refugees, identify their coping mechanisms and pathways towards integration into new communities, and formulate recommendations for better access to mental healthcare services. Methods We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews with adult refugees (>18 years old) who are currently residing in Southeast of England. Interviews were conducted in Arabic, recorded, transcribed and translated verbatim. Translated transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Ethical Approval was obtained from the Brighton and Sussex Medical School Research Governance Ethics Committee (ER/BSMS9DAP/1). Results Twelve participants (3 females and 9 males) took part in the study; all were born in Syria and the majority (n = 9) were over 45 years of age. Participants described symptoms of reduced psychological wellbeing. Preliminary findings shows that almost all participants talked about psychological distress resulting from previous trauma, loss of and separation from family members and challenges adjusting to their host country. Barriers to accessing the healthcare system in the UK included fear of stigma, being misunderstood by healthcare staff and language issues. Communicating with loved ones, connecting with nature, practising faith and pursuing hobbies were reported as coping strategies. Conclusions For Syrian refugees in the UK, mental wellbeing embraces living with past traumatic experiences, achieving social integration and facing challenges accessing healthcare. Understanding differences between refugee and host communities is key to appropriately cater to the specific needs of each community and achieve equity in healthcare access. Key messages Syrian refugees in UK described symptoms of reduced psychological wellbeing. Understanding the needs of refugee communities is necessary to achieve equity in healthcare access.