No abstract

Ensuring effective mental health and psychosocial support is crucial following exposure to a potentially traumatic event and can have long-term consequences for individuals, families, and communities. Psychological first aid (PFA) has become a widespread intervention of choice following exposure to conflict or disaster; however, its impact is unknown. This systematic review assessed PFA efficacy in improving the mental health and psychosocial well-being of individuals exposed to potentially traumatic events. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, PTSDpubs, and EMBASE for peer reviewed studies evaluating programmatic outcomes of PFA, or an adapted intervention, published in English before March 9, 2021. Studies evaluating training outcomes or program feasibility were excluded. The primary outcomes were reported measures of participant mental health and psychosocial well-being, with narrative results presented for each. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was applied. Of 9,048 potentially eligible citations, 12 studies with a total of 1,437 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial. The findings from all studies suggest a positive impact of PFA, with most reporting reduced symptoms of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, and distress, as well as improved ratings of mood, the experience of safety, connectedness, and a sense of control, among youth and adults. Risk of bias was generally high. Inconsistent intervention components, insufficient evaluation methodologies, and a high risk of bias within the reviewed studies present challenges in assessing PFA efficacy, and an imbalance between popular support for PFA and scant evidence of outcome data exists.

BackgroundFew studies have addressed mental illness-related discrimination in low-income countries, where the mental health treatment gap is highest. We aimed to evaluate the experience of discrimination among persons with severe mental illnesses (SMI) in Ethiopia, a low-income, rapidly urbanizing African country, and hypothesised that experienced discrimination would be higher among those living in a rural compared to an urban setting.MethodsThe study was a cross-sectional survey of a community-ascertained sample of people with SMI who underwent confirmatory diagnostic interview. Experienced discrimination was measured using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-12). Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to estimate the effect of place of residence (rural vs. urban) on discrimination, adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsOf the 300 study participants, 63.3% had experienced discrimination in the previous year, most commonly being avoided or shunned because of mental illness (38.5%). Urban residents were significantly more likely to have experienced unfair treatment from friends (χ2(1) = 4.80; p = 0.028), the police (χ2(1) =11.97; p = 0.001), in keeping a job (χ2(1) = 5.43; p = 0.020), and in safety (χ2(1) = 5.00; p = 0.025), and had a significantly higher DISC-12 score than those living in rural areas (adjusted risk ratio: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.18, 2.33).ConclusionsPersons with SMI living in urban settings report more experience of discrimination than their rural counterparts, which may reflect a downside of wider social opportunities in urban settings. Initiatives to expand access to mental health care should consider how social exclusion can be overcome in different settings.