Relevance or Excellence? Setting Research Priorities for Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Humanitarian Settings

Abstract

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.)

Broadening the scope of epidemiology in conflict-affected settings: opportunities for mental health prevention and promotion

“…(#7) and 'To what extent do current mental health and psychosocial supports address locally perceived needs?' (#9) (Tol et al, 2011c(Tol et al, , 2012.…”

Evidence-based mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: gaps and opportunities

“…Only 6% of the 733 generated research questions concerned traumatic stress. Furthermore, the final top 10 most highly prioritised research questions from this study – with over 80% agreement that these questions were ‘essential’ to address in the coming 10 years – included six questions relevant to problem analysis and assessment 9 10. In addition to a focus on a broader range of mental disorders and psychosocial issues, the resulting research agenda emphasises the inclusion of perspectives from affected populations and sensitivity to socio-cultural issues in defining mental health and psychosocial problems, needs and capacities in humanitarian settings.…”

Mental health research: developing priorities and promoting its utilization to inform policies and services

“…Two research priority setting activities have been undertaken in recent years for mental health, one by members of the Lancet Mental Health Group (11) and another by the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Humanitarian Settings-Research Priority Setting project (12). These have highlighted the need for better alignment between researchers and practitioners, and concluded that it would be best to fill critical knowledge gaps by investing in research into 3 areas: health policy and systems; epidemiology; and improved delivery of cost-effective interventions.…”

“…The criteria developed by the Lancet Mental Health Group (11) and the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Humanitarian SettingsResearch Priority Setting project (12) can be used by the EMR to develop specific priorities. The steps used by the Lancet group were:…”