War exposure, daily stressors, and mental health 15 years on: implications of an ecological framework for addressing the mental health of conflict-affected populations.

AIMS

Fifteen years ago, we published an article in seeking to resolve the contentious debate between advocates of two very different frameworks for understanding and addressing the mental health needs of conflict-affected populations. The two approaches, which we labelled and , reflect deeply held beliefs about the causes and nature of distress in war-affected communities. Drawing on the burgeoning literature on armed conflict and mental health, the reports of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) staff in the field, and on research on the psychology and psychophysiology of stress, we proposed an integrative model that drew on the strengths of both frameworks and underscored their essential complementarity. Our model includes two primary pathways by which armed conflict impacts mental health: directly, through exposure to war-related violence and loss, and indirectly, through the harsh conditions of everyday life caused or exacerbated by armed conflict. The mediated model we proposed draws attention to the effects of stressors both past (prior exposure to war-related violence and loss) and present (ongoing conflict, daily stressors), at all levels of the social ecology; for that reason, we have termed it an ecological model for understanding the mental health needs of conflict-affected populations.

METHODS

In the ensuing 15 years, the model has been rigorously tested in diverse populations and has found robust support. In this paper, we first summarize the development and key tenets of the model and briefly review recent empirical support for it. We then discuss the implications of an ecological framework for interventions aimed at strengthening mental health in conflict-affected populations.

RESULTS

We present preliminary evidence suggesting there has been a gradual shift towards more ecological (i.e., multilevel, multimodal) programming in MHPSS interventions, along the lines suggested by our model as well as other conceptually related frameworks, particularly public health.

CONCLUSIONS

We reflect on several gaps in the model, most notably the absence of adverse childhood experiences. We suggest the importance of examining early adversity as both a direct influence on mental health and as a potential moderator of the impact of potentially traumatic war-related experiences of violence and loss.