Dataset Information

Self Help Plus: study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial of guided self-help with South Sudanese refugee women in Uganda.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Exposure to armed conflict and forced displacement constitute significant risks for mental health. Existing evidence-based psychological interventions have limitations for scaling-up in low-resource humanitarian settings. The WHO has developed a guided self-help intervention, Self Help Plus (SH+), which is brief, implemented by non-specialists, and designed to be delivered to people with and without specific mental disorders. This paper outlines the study protocol for an evaluation of the SH+ intervention in northern Uganda, with South Sudanese refugee women.

Methods

A two-arm, single-blind cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 14 villages in Rhino Camp refugee settlement, with at least 588 women experiencing psychological distress. Villages will be randomly assigned to receive either SH+ with enhanced usual care (EUC), or EUC alone. SH+ is a five-session guided self-help intervention delivered in workshops with audio-recorded materials and accompanying pictorial guide. The primary outcome is reduction in overall psychological distress over time, with 3 months post-treatment as the primary end-point. Secondary outcomes are self-defined psychosocial concerns, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, hazardous alcohol use, feelings of anger, interethnic relations, psychological flexibility, functional impairment and subjective wellbeing. Psychological flexibility is a hypothesised mediator, and past trauma history and intervention attendance will be explored as potential moderators.

Discussion

This trial will provide important information on the effectiveness of a scalable, guided self-help intervention for improving psychological health and wellbeing among people affected by adversity.

Trial registration

ISRCTN50148022; registered 13/03/2017.

SUBMITTER: Brown FL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6094406 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To ascertain whether an ultrabrief intervention (UBI) improves mental health outcomes for patients in general practice with mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. TRIAL DESIGN:Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. METHODS:Participants: general practitioners (GPs) were invited based on working in a participating general practice. Patients were eligible to participate if aged 18-65 years, scored ?35 on the Kessler-10 (K10) and if meeting local mental health access criteria (based on age, low income or ethnic group). INTERVENTIONS:intervention arm GPs were trained on the UBI approach, with participating patients receiving three structured appointments over 5 weeks. GPs randomised to practice as usual (PAU) did not receive training, and delivered support following their existing practice approaches. OUTCOME MEASURES:primary outcome was patient-level K10 score at 6 months postrecruitment.Randomisation: GP practices were randomised to UBI training or PAU at the start of the study.Blinding: GPs were not blinded to group assignment. RESULTS:Numbers randomised: 62 GPs (recruiting 85 patients) were randomised to UBI, and 50 to PAU (recruiting 75 patients).Numbers analysed: 31 GPs recruited at least one patient in the UBI arm (70 patients analysed), and 21 GPs recruited at least one patient in the PAU arm (69 patients analysed). OUTCOME:K10 scores from an intention-to-treat analysis were similar in UBI and PAU arms, with a wide CI (mean adjusted K10 difference=1.68 points higher in UBI arm, 95% CI -1.18 to 4.55; p=0.255). Secondary outcomes were also similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:the UBI intervention did not lead to better outcomes than practice as usual, although the study had lower than planned power due to poor recruitment. The study results can still contribute to the continuing debate about brief psychological therapy options for primary care and their development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12613000041752; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe world is witnessing mass displacement of populations which could impact global efforts to eliminate neglected tropical diseases such as trachoma. On the African continent, South Sudan has experienced high levels of population displacement. Population based baseline trachoma surveys were conducted among refugee camps in two Sudanese localities hosting South Sudanese refugee populations to determine whether the SAFE strategy was warranted.Methodology/principal findingsCross-sectional, multi-stage, cluster-random surveys were conducted within refugee camps in each of two Sudanese localities, Al Salam and Al Jabalain. For survey sampling, multiple camps within each locality were combined to form the sampling frame for that locality. Household water, sanitation and hygiene indicators were assessed, and trachoma signs were graded by trained and certified graders. The prevalence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) in children aged one to nine years was 15.7% (95%CI: 12.1-20.2) in Al Salam and 10.6% (95%CI: 7.9-14.0) in Al Jabalain. The prevalence of trachomatous trichiasis (TT) in those 15 years above was 2.9% (95%CI: 1.8-4.8) in Al Salam and 5.0% (95%CI: 3.8-6.6) in Al Jabalain. The presence of water and sanitation was high in both survey units.Conclusion/ significanceSudan has made progress in reducing the prevalence of trachoma within the country; however, the presence of over one million refugees from a neighboring trachoma hyper-endemic country could impact this progress. These surveys were the first step in addressing this important issue. The results demonstrate that at least three years of mass drug administration with azithromycin and tetracycline is needed in addition to the provision of TT surgical services. Additionally, it highlights that non-endemic or formerly endemic localities may have to adopt new strategies to provide services for refugee populations originating from hyper-endemic regions to ensure elimination of trachoma as a public health problem for all populations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression has serious personal, family and economic consequences. It is estimated that it will cost £12.15 billion to the economy each year in England by 2026. Improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) is the National Health Service talking therapies service in England for adults experiencing anxiety or depression. Over 1 million people are referred to IAPT every year, over half experiencing depression. Where symptoms of depression are mild to moderate, people are typically offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help (CBT-SH) supported by a psychological well-being practitioner. The problem is that over half of people who complete treatment for depression in IAPT remain depressed despite receiving National Institute of Health and Care Excellent recommended treatment. Furthermore, less than half of IAPT service users complete treatment. This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of an alternative to CBT-SH. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) differs from CBT in focus, approach and practice, and may be more effective with a higher number of treatment completions. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing supported MBCT self-help (MBCT-SH) with CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression being treated in IAPT services. We will recruit 410 participants experiencing mild to moderate depression from IAPT services and randomise these to receive either an MBCT-based self-help workbook or a CBT-based self-help workbook. Participants will be asked to complete their workbook within 16?weeks, with six support sessions with a psychological well-being practitioner. The primary outcome is depression symptom severity on treatment completion. Secondary outcomes are treatment completion rates and measures of generalized anxiety, well-being, functioning and mindfulness. An exploratory non-inferiority analysis will be conducted in the event the primary hypothesis is not supported. A semi-structured interview with participants will guide understanding of change processes. DISCUSSION:If the findings from this randomised controlled trial demonstrate that MBCT-SH is more effective than CBT-SH for adults experiencing depression, this will provide evidence for policy makers and lead to changes to clinical practice in IAPT services, leading to greater choice of self-help treatment options and better outcomes for service users. If the exploratory non-inferiority analysis is conducted and this indicates non-inferiority of MBCT-SH in comparison to CBT-SH this will also be of interest to policy makers when seeking to increase service user choice of self-help treatment options for depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN 13495752. Registered on 31 August 2017 (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13495752).

Project description:Evaluating and comparing the effectiveness of two smartphone-delivered treatments: one based on behavioural activation (BA) and other on mindfulness.Parallel randomised controlled, open, trial. Participants were allocated using an online randomisation tool, handled by an independent person who was separate from the staff conducting the study.General community, with recruitment nationally through mass media and advertisements.40 participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder received a BA treatment, and 41 participants received a mindfulness treatment. 9 participants were lost at the post-treatment.An 8-week long behaviour programme administered via a smartphone application. Mindfulness: An 8-week long mindfulness programme, administered via a smartphone application.The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale (PHQ-9).81 participants were randomised (mean age 36.0 years (SD=10.8)) and analysed. Results showed no significant interaction effects of group and time on any of the outcome measures either from pretreatment to post-treatment or from pretreatment to the 6-month follow-up. Subgroup analyses showed that the BA treatment was more effective than the mindfulness treatment among participants with higher initial severity of depression from pretreatment to the 6-month follow-up (PHQ-9: F (1, 362.1)=5.2, p<0.05). In contrast, the mindfulness treatment worked better than the BA treatment among participants with lower initial severity from pretreatment to the 6-month follow-up (PHQ-9: F (1, 69.3)=7.7, p<0.01); BDI-II: (F(1, 53.60)=6.25, p<0.05).The two interventions did not differ significantly from one another. For participants with higher severity of depression, the treatment based on BA was superior to the treatment based on mindfulness. For participants with lower initial severity, the treatment based on mindfulness worked significantly better than the treatment based on BA.Clinical Trials NCT01463020.