Resilienztraining für unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Die hohen Flüchtlingszahlen und die fortlaufende Ankunft schwer traumatisierter unbegleiteter minderjähriger Flüchtlinge (UMF) verschärfen die Suche nach wirksamen und niederschwelligen Präventions- und Interventionsprogrammen. Die vorliegende Pilotstudie evaluiert die Effektivität eines nicht-indizierten, sechs Sitzungen umfassenden Resilienztrainings für UMF. Teilnehmende (N = 55) wurden in einem randomisiert-kontrollierten Wartelistendesign vor (T1) und nach (T2) dem Gruppenprogramm untersucht. Abhängige Variablen waren das allgemeine Wohlbefinden sowie Symptome von Traumafolgestörungen. Weiter wurden aus mehreren Perspektiven (Teilnehmer, Dolmetscher, Gruppenleitende, Betreuende) qualitative Daten erfasst. Während Traumafolgestörungssymptome unverändert blieben, berichtete die Interventionsgruppe nach dem Programm einen Anstieg im Wohlbefinden, nicht jedoch die Kontrollgruppe. Die qualitativen Daten wiesen perspektivenübergreifend auf positive Veränderungen in mehreren Funktionsbereichen hin. Ein kurzes Resilienztraining hat somit das Potential Verbesserungen zu bewirken. Für eine Minderung von Traumafolgestörungssymptomen sind jedoch wohl längere bzw. traumaspezifischere Interventionen erforderlich.

Interventions to enhance psychological resilience in forcibly displaced children: a systematic review

“…Eight [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] included studies were RCTs; 15 [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] were non-randomised single-group pre-post studies. Studies were diverse in intervention setting, population age group, intervention type, intervention form and intensity.…”

“…Note: The following studies used a randomised design: Annan et al,40 Meyer DeMott et al,42 Metzler et al,41 Betancourt et al,43 Lange-Nielsen et al,44 Sirin et al,45 Yankey et al46 and Scheiber et al47*Risk of bias classification was based on ROB-2 and ROBINS-I instruments 31. ‘Low’ risk of bias is considered comparable to an RCT; ‘moderate’ risk of bias is considered inferior to an RCT but sound for observational studies; ‘serious’ risk of bias or ‘some concerns’ indicates at least one domain where bias likely affects results; high risk of bias indicates substantial risk of bias in one domain or concerns across multiple domains; ‘critical’ indicates risk of bias to a degree that renders the evidence likely not useful.†Effect size is based on the difference between treatment and control groups.FDP, forcibly displaced population; RCT, randomised controlled trial; UAM, unaccompanied minors.…”

“…Note: The following studies used a randomised design: Annan et al,40 Meyer DeMott et al,42 Metzler et al,41 Betancourt et al,43 Lange-Nielsen et al,44 Sirin et al,45 Yankey et al46 and Scheiber et al47…”

“…The effect of an intervention on the reduction in attention problems was reported only by Annan et al, at g av =−0.275 (−0.449, -0.100) by caregivers and g av = 0.04 (−0.139, 0.219) by children, compared with the control group. 40 Behavioral problems of childhood Six out of the 10 reported effect size estimates showed statistically significant improvements in this category, however, meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the use The following studies used a randomised design: Annan et al, 40 Meyer DeMott et al, 42 Metzler et al, 41 Betancourt et al, 43 Lange-Nielsen et al, 44 Sirin et al, 45 Yankey et al 46 and Scheiber et al 47 *Risk of bias classification was based on ROB-2 and ROBINS-I instruments. 31 'Low' risk of bias is considered comparable to an RCT; 'moderate' risk of bias is considered inferior to an RCT but sound for observational studies; 'serious' risk of bias or 'some concerns' indicates at least one domain where bias likely affects results; high risk of bias indicates substantial risk of bias in one domain or concerns across multiple domains; 'critical' indicates risk of bias to a degree that renders the evidence likely not useful.…”

Psychotherapeutic and Psychosocial Interventions with Unaccompanied Minors: A Scoping Review

“…Of the 46 papers that concern psychotherapy, 23 report CBT interventions [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], 6 transcultural interventions [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ], 5 psychodynamic interventions [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ], 2 NET interventions [ 71 , 72 ], 2 narrative interventions [ 73 , 74 ], 2 art interventions [ 75 , 76 ], 1 systemic intervention [ 77 ] and 5 examine various other approaches [ 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]. Furthermore, 12 studies followed a multimodal approach [ 45 , 46 , 51 ,…”