Identifying best practice for the supervision of mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian emergencies: a Delphi study

Abstract

Background Supportive supervision has been shown to improve worker resilience and wellbeing, which are particularly important in the context of humanitarian emergency settings. Despite its noted importance however, supervision remains an under-prioritised area in mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS). Method The present study used a Delphi consensus-building methodology to examine levels of agreement among a diverse sample of MHPSS stakeholders (n = 48) on key ideas and concepts relating to supervision in humanitarian settings. Results The majority of statements presented showed a high degree of consensus, with some receiving almost universal agreement, such as the importance of using active listening skills in the supervisory context and the need for supervisors to have access to their own supervisory support. However, disagreement on several points remained. For example, participants disagreed about whether the qualities required to be an effective supervisor can be taught, or whether they are more innate and should be screened for when recruiting supervisors. Gender differences in responses were also analysed, with potential associations between gender and level of agreement emerging in relation to statements about power dynamics, remote supervision, and intervention quality enhancement. Conclusions The findings of the present study are discussed in terms of their implications for a forthcoming set of guidelines for supervision of MHPSS in humanitarian settings: The Integrated Model for Supervision (IMS).

Implementing supportive supervision in acute humanitarian emergencies: Lessons learned from Afghanistan and Ukraine

“…It features standardised guidelines for incorporating and employing evidence-based supportive supervision practices for MHPSS practitioners operating in humanitarian contexts. The IMS was developed using participatory action research approaches spanning multiple stages of stakeholder consultation, including a desk review, regional workshops, key informant interviews [ 17 ], and Delphi techniques [ 18 ]. It was first piloted with four humanitarian organisations based in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Jordan, and Nigeria.…”

Gender considerations for supportive supervision in humanitarian contexts: A qualitative study

“…Addressing the need for standardised guidelines on supportive supervision in MHPSS in humanitarian contexts, "Supervision: The Missing Link" project was launched in 2019 as a collaboration between the Trinity Centre for Global Health (TCGH), Trinity College Dublin and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Psychosocial Centre (PS-IFRC). The project used participatory research approaches spanning multiple stages of stakeholder consultation, including a desk review, key informant interviews (Perera et al, 2021), and a Delphi consultation (Travers et al, 2022), to inform the development of a (freely available) Integrated Model for Supervision (IMS) Handbook and accompanying training guidelines (http://www.supervision-mhpss.org/).…”

From self‐care to compassion resilience: Extending the model of protective factors for humanitarian practitioners

“…With the uptick in worldwide crises, including climate change, increasing global migration, and natural and human‐made disasters, local and international humanitarian practitioners, specifically emergency aid and relief workers, social workers, disaster responders, and crisis clinicians, are at elevated risk of potentially being exposed to traumatic events and situations of extreme violence as a result of their professions (Jachens, 2019; Lee et al, 2018; Lewis‐Schroeder et al, 2018; Singer et al, 2020; Strohmeier et al, 2018; Wild et al, 2020). As they respond to disasters and crises, practitioners can experience a range of mental health challenges, including traumatic stress, as a result of their exposure to the narratives of those whom they are trying to serve (Cherepanov, 2022; Stevens et al, 2022; Travers et al, 2022). Yet approaches to responding to this silent pandemic of traumatic stress continue to be inadequate (Ebren et al, 2022; Kim et al, 2021).…”