Mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) staff in humanitarian settings have limited access to clinical supervision and are at high risk of experiencing burnout. We previously piloted an online, peer-supervision program for MHPSS professionals working with displaced Rohingya (Bangladesh) and Syrian (Turkey and Northwest Syria) communities. Pilot evaluations demonstrated that online, peer-supervision is feasible, low-cost, and acceptable to MHPSS practitioners in humanitarian settings.

This project will determine the impact of online supervision on i) the wellbeing and burnout levels of local MHPSS practitioners, and ii) practitioner technical skills to improve beneficiary perceived service satisfaction, acceptability, and appropriateness.

MHPSS practitioners in two contexts (Bangladesh and Turkey/Northwest Syria) will participate in 90-minute group-based online supervision, fortnightly for six months. Sessions will be run on zoom and will be co-facilitated by MHPSS practitioners and in-country research assistants. A quasi-experimental multiple-baseline design will enable a quantitative comparison of practitioner and beneficiary outcomes between control periods (12-months) and the intervention. Outcomes to be assessed include the Kessler-6, Harvard Trauma Questionnaire and Copenhagen Burnout Inventory and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8.

A total of 80 MHPSS practitioners will complete 24 monthly online assessments from May 2022. Concurrently, 1920 people receiving MHPSS services will be randomly selected for post-session interviews (24 per practitioner).

This study will determine the impact of an online, peer-supervision program for MHPSS practitioners in humanitarian settings. Results from the baseline assessments, pilot evaluation, and theory of change model will be presented.

No significant relationships.

When the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) adopted the composite term mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and published its guidelines for MHPSS in emergency settings in 2007, it aimed to build consensus and strengthen coordination among relevant humanitarian actors. The term MHPSS offered an inclusive tent by welcoming the different terminologies, explanatory models and intervention methods of diverse actors across several humanitarian sectors (e.g., health, protection, education, nutrition). Since its introduction, the term has become well-established within the global humanitarian system. However, it has also been critiqued for papering over substantive differences in the intervention priorities and conceptual frameworks that inform the wide range of interventions described as MHPSS. Our aims are to clarify those conceptual frameworks, to argue for their essential complementarity and to illustrate the perils of failing to adequately consider the causal models and theories of change that underlie our interventions.

We describe the historical backdrop against which the term MHPSS and the IASC guidelines were developed, as well as their impact on improving relations and coordination among different aid sectors. We consider the conceptual fuzziness in the field of MHPSS and the lack of clear articulation of the different conceptual frameworks that guide interventions. We describe the explanatory models and intervention approaches of two primary frameworks within MHPSS, which we label clinical and social-environmental. Using the examples of intimate partner violence and compromised parenting in humanitarian settings, we illustrate the complementarity of these two frameworks, as well as the challenges that can arise when either framework is inappropriately applied.

Clinical interventions prioritise the role of intrapersonal variables, biological and/or psychological, as mediators of change in the treatment of distress. Social-environmental interventions emphasise the role of social determinants of distress and target factors in the social and material environments in order to lower distress and increase resilience in the face of adversity. Both approaches play a critical role in humanitarian settings; however, the rationale for adopting one or the other approach is commonly insufficiently articulated and should be based on a thorough assessment of causal processes at multiple levels of the social ecology.

Greater attention to the ‘why’ of our intervention choices and more explicit articulation of the causal models and theories of change that underlie those decisions (i.e., the ‘how’), may strengthen intervention effects and minimise the risk of applying the inappropriate framework and actions to a particular problem.

This paper reviews the efficacy of a community psychosocial arts program focused on building mental health capacity within post-Ebola Liberia. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the outcome effects of two groups using pre- and post-treatment data. We hypothesized that there would be a difference in symptoms pre- and post-treatment, and the longer program would yield more significant results.

There was a total of 870 child participants. Of 40 sites, 24 were selected for a 5-month treatment (TG1) while the remaining 16 sites received 3 months of treatment (TG2). Paired t tests and a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to analyse pre- and post-psychological stress symptoms (PSS) for samples from both groups.

Separately, treatment group 1 (TG1) and treatment group 2's (TG2) paired t test yielded significant results (p < 0.001) for the decrease of PSS. The mixed-model ANOVA found that there were significant differences in total pre- and post-test PSS and a significant difference in PSS means over time.

Results indicated that there was a statistically significant decrease in reported symptoms in both treatment groups pre- to post-intervention and a significant difference in total symptoms over time. However, the findings do not indicate that the longer programming was statistically different compared to the shorter programming. The study presented had gaps in data, largely due to limits in research during the crisis. However, this paper provides a unique case study for challenges that can be faced for project evaluation in emergency settings.