Process evaluations of mental health and psychosocial support interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Process evaluations of mental health and psychosocial support interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises. / Massazza, Alessandro; May, Carl R.; Roberts, Bayard; Tol, Wietse A.; Bogdanov, Sergiy; Nadkarni, Abhijit; Fuhr, Daniela C.
In: Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 303, 114994, 2022.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Process evaluations of mental health and psychosocial support interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises
AU - Massazza, Alessandro
AU - May, Carl R.
AU - Roberts, Bayard
AU - Tol, Wietse A.
AU - Bogdanov, Sergiy
AU - Nadkarni, Abhijit
AU - Fuhr, Daniela C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been increasingly used to test the effectiveness of mental health and psychosocial support(MHPSS) interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises. Process evaluations are often integrated within RCTs of psychological interventions to investigate the implementation of the intervention, the impact of context, and possible mechanisms of action. We aimed to explore limitations and strengths of how process evaluations are currently conceptualised and implemented within MHPSS RCTs specifically. Methods: In April–June 2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 researchers involved in RCTs of MHPSS interventions in 23 different countries. Participants were selected based on systematic reviews of MHPSS interventions, funders’ databases, and personal networks. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. Results: The conduct of process evaluations was characterized by high heterogeneity in perceived function, implementation outcomes assessed, and methods used. While process evaluations were overwhelmingly considered as an important component of an RCT, there were different opinions on their perceived quality. This could be explained by the varying prioritization of effectiveness data over implementation data, confusion around the nature of process evaluations, and challenges in the collection and analysis of process data in humanitarian settings. Various practical recommendations were made by participants to improve future process evaluations in relation to: (i) study design (e.g., embedding process evaluations in study protocol and overall study objectives); (ii) methods (e.g., use of mixed methods); and (iii) increased financial and human resources dedicated to process evaluations. Conclusion: The current state of process evaluations in MHPSS RCTs is heterogeneous. The quality of process evaluations should be improved to strengthen implementation science of the growing number of evidence-informed MHPSS interventions.
AB - Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been increasingly used to test the effectiveness of mental health and psychosocial support(MHPSS) interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises. Process evaluations are often integrated within RCTs of psychological interventions to investigate the implementation of the intervention, the impact of context, and possible mechanisms of action. We aimed to explore limitations and strengths of how process evaluations are currently conceptualised and implemented within MHPSS RCTs specifically. Methods: In April–June 2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 researchers involved in RCTs of MHPSS interventions in 23 different countries. Participants were selected based on systematic reviews of MHPSS interventions, funders’ databases, and personal networks. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. Results: The conduct of process evaluations was characterized by high heterogeneity in perceived function, implementation outcomes assessed, and methods used. While process evaluations were overwhelmingly considered as an important component of an RCT, there were different opinions on their perceived quality. This could be explained by the varying prioritization of effectiveness data over implementation data, confusion around the nature of process evaluations, and challenges in the collection and analysis of process data in humanitarian settings. Various practical recommendations were made by participants to improve future process evaluations in relation to: (i) study design (e.g., embedding process evaluations in study protocol and overall study objectives); (ii) methods (e.g., use of mixed methods); and (iii) increased financial and human resources dedicated to process evaluations. Conclusion: The current state of process evaluations in MHPSS RCTs is heterogeneous. The quality of process evaluations should be improved to strengthen implementation science of the growing number of evidence-informed MHPSS interventions.
KW - Humanitarian crises
KW - Implementation science
KW - Mental health and psychosocial support
KW - Process evaluation
KW - Randomized controlled trial
U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114994
DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114994
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 35561423
AN - SCOPUS:85129692963
VL - 303
JO - Social Science & Medicine
JF - Social Science & Medicine
SN - 0277-9536
M1 - 114994
ER -
ID: 311205069