Scalable psychological interventions for Syrian refugees in Europe and the Middle East:STRENGTHS study protocol for a prospective individual participant data meta-analysis
Introduction The World Health Organization’s (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ and its group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ and SbS with Syrian refugees. Methods and analysis Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list. Ethics and dissemination Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.
| Item Type | Article |
|---|---|
| Departments | Care Policy and Evaluation Centre |
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058101 |
| Date Deposited | 28 Apr 2022 14:51 |
| URI | https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/115000 |
Explore Further
- de Graaff, Anne M.
- Cuijpers, Pim
- Acarturk, Ceren
- Akhtar, Aemal
- Alkneme, Mhd Salem
- Aoun, May
- Awwad, Manar
- Bawaneh, Ahmad
- Brown, Felicity L
- Bryant, Richard A.
- Burchert, Sebastian
- Carswell, Kenneth
- Drogendijk, Annelieke
- Engels, Michelle
- Fuhr, Daniela C.
- Hansen, Pernille
- van't Hof, Edith
- Giardinelli, Luana
- Hemmo, Mahmoud
- Hessling, Jonas M
- Ilkkursun, Zeynep
- Jordans, Mark J D
- Kiselev, Nikolai
- Knaevelsrud, Christine
- Kurt, Gülsah
- Martinmäki, Saara
- McDaid, David
- Morina, Naser
- Naser, Hadeel
- Park, A-La
- Pfaltz, Monique C.
- Roberts, Bayard
- Schick, Matthis
- Schnyder, Ulrich
- Spaaij, Julia
- Steen, Frederik
- Taha, Karine
- Uygun, Ersin
- Ventevogel, Peter
- Whitney, Claire
- Witteveen, Anke B
- Sijbrandij, Marit
