Uphoff Eleonora, Robertson Lindsay, Cabieses Baltica, Villalón Francisco J, Purgato Marianna, Churchill Rachel, Barbui Corrado
Cochrane Common Mental Disorders, University of York, York, UK.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Sep 4;9(9):CD013458. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013458.pub2.
Migrants who have been forced to leave their home, such as refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons (IDP), are likely to experience stressors which may lead to mental health problems. The efficacy of interventions for mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment may differ in this population.
With this overview of systematic reviews, we will map the characteristics and methodological quality of existing systematic reviews and registered systematic review protocols on the promotion of mental health and prevention and treatment of common mental disorders among refugees, asylum seekers, and IDPs. The findings from this overview will be used to prioritise and inform future Cochrane reviews on the mental health of involuntary migrants.
We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1945 onwards), Ovid Embase (1974 onwards), Ovid PsycINFO, ProQuest PTSDpubs, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, NIHR Journals Library, CRD databases (archived), DoPHER, Epistemonikos, Health Evidence, 3ie International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, and PROSPERO, to identify systematic reviews of mental health interventions for involuntary migrants. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches. We included systematic reviews or protocols for systematic reviews of interventions aimed at refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons. Interventions must have been aimed at mental health promotion (for example, classroom-based well-being interventions for children), prevention of mental health problems (for example, trauma-focussed Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder), or treatment of common mental disorders and symptoms (for example, narrative exposure therapy to treat symptoms of trauma). After screening abstracts and full-text manuscripts in duplicate, we extracted data on the characteristics of the reviews, the interventions examined in reviews, and the number of primary studies included in each review. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2.
The overview includes 23 systematic reviews and 15 registered systematic review protocols. Of the 23 published systematic reviews, meta-analyses were conducted in eight reviews. It was more common for the search strategy or inclusion criteria of the reviews to state that studies involving refugees were eligible for inclusion (23/23), than for asylum seekers (14/23) or IDPs (7/23) to be explicitly mentioned. In most reviews, study eligiblity was either not restricted by participant age (9/23), or restricted to adults (10/23). Reviews commonly reported on studies of diagnosis or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or trauma (11/23) and were less likely to report on depression or anxiety (6/23). In 15 reviews the intervention of interest was focused on/ specific to psychological therapy. Across all 23 reviews, the interventions most commonly identified from primary studies were general Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Narrative Exposure Therapy, and a range of different integrative and interpersonal therapies. Even though many reviews included studies of participants without a diagnosis of a mental health problem, they often assessed mental health treatments and did not usually distinguish between promotion, prevention, and treatment in the review aims. Together the 23 systematic reviews included 336 references, of which 175 were unique primary studies. Limitations to the methodological quality of reviews most commonly related to reporting of selection criteria (21/23), absence of a protocol (19/23), reporting of study design (20/23), search strategy (22/23), and funding sources of primary studies (19/23).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gaps exist in the evidence on mental health interventions for refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons. Most reviews do not specify that internally displaced persons are included in the selection criteria, even though they make up the majority of involuntary migrants worldwide. Reviews specific to mental health promotion and prevention of common mental disorders are missing, and there is more evidence available for adults or mixed populations than for children. The literature is focused on post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma-related symptoms, with less attention for depression and anxiety disorders. Better quality systematic reviews and better report of review design and methods would help those who may use these reviews to inform implementation of mental health interventions.
被迫离开家园的移民,如难民、寻求庇护者和境内流离失所者,可能会经历一些应激源,进而导致心理健康问题。针对这一人群的心理健康促进、预防和治疗干预措施的效果可能存在差异。
通过对系统评价的概述,我们将梳理现有关于难民、寻求庇护者和境内流离失所者心理健康促进以及常见精神障碍预防和治疗的系统评价及已注册的系统评价方案的特征和方法学质量。该概述的结果将用于确定优先事项,并为未来Cochrane关于非自愿移民心理健康的评价提供参考。
我们检索了Ovid MEDLINE(1945年起)、Ovid Embase(1974年起)、Ovid PsycINFO、ProQuest PTSDpubs、科学引文索引核心合集、Cochrane系统评价数据库、英国国家卫生研究院期刊图书馆、CRD数据库(存档)、DoPHER、Epistemonikos、健康证据、3ie国际影响评估倡议和PROSPERO,以识别针对非自愿移民心理健康干预措施的系统评价。我们对检索没有设置日期、语言或出版状态的限制。我们纳入了针对难民、寻求庇护者和境内流离失所者干预措施的系统评价或系统评价方案。干预措施必须旨在促进心理健康(例如,针对儿童的基于课堂的幸福感干预)、预防心理健康问题(例如,以创伤为重点的认知行为疗法预防创伤后应激障碍)或治疗常见精神障碍和症状(例如,叙事暴露疗法治疗创伤症状)。在对摘要和全文手稿进行两轮重复筛选后,我们提取了关于评价特征、评价中所研究的干预措施以及每项评价中纳入的原始研究数量的数据。使用AMSTAR 2评估纳入的系统评价的方法学质量。
该概述包括23项系统评价和15项已注册的系统评价方案。在23项已发表的系统评价中,有8项进行了荟萃分析。评价的检索策略或纳入标准更常表明涉及难民的研究符合纳入条件(23/23),而明确提及寻求庇护者(14/23)或境内流离失所者(7/23)的情况则较少见。在大多数评价中,研究纳入标准要么不受参与者年龄限制(9/23),要么仅限于成年人(10/23)。评价通常报告创伤后应激障碍或创伤的诊断或症状研究(11/23),而报告抑郁症或焦虑症的可能性较小(6/23)。在15项评价中,感兴趣的干预措施集中于/特定于心理治疗。在所有23项评价中,从原始研究中最常确定的干预措施是一般认知行为疗法、叙事暴露疗法以及一系列不同的综合和人际疗法。尽管许多评价纳入了未诊断出心理健康问题的参与者的研究,但它们通常评估心理健康治疗,并且在评价目的中通常没有区分促进、预防和治疗。这23项系统评价总共包括336篇参考文献,其中175篇是独特的原始研究。评价方法学质量的局限性最常与选择标准的报告(21/23)、缺乏方案(19/23)、研究设计的报告(20/23)、检索策略(22/23)以及原始研究的资金来源(19/23)有关。
关于难民、寻求庇护者和境内流离失所者心理健康干预措施的证据存在差距。大多数评价没有明确规定境内流离失所者纳入选择标准,尽管他们占全球非自愿移民的大多数。缺少针对心理健康促进和常见精神障碍预防的特定评价,并且关于成年人或混合人群的证据比儿童更多。文献集中于创伤后应激障碍和创伤相关症状,对抑郁症和焦虑症的关注较少。质量更高的系统评价以及对评价设计和方法的更好报告将有助于那些可能使用这些评价来指导心理健康干预措施实施的人。