Pathways to resilience in post genocide Rwanda a resources efficacy model

Field researchers and practitioners in the area of post conflict mental health have moved away from an exclusive concern with trauma and damage to a resilience perspective. This new perspective focuses on how traumatised individuals and communities reconstruct their lives and institutions. This qualitative study examines resilience in post genocide Rwanda, with the aim of developing a model for understanding resilient processes in the country.

Social capital and mental health: connextions and complexities in contexts of post conflict recovery

In war affected populations there is often severe disruption of societal cohesion. Additionally, grief and traumatisation, along with insufficient health services and a lack of security, give rise to an increase of mental health problems. Social capital is potentially a key resource to support post conflict recovery, and is increasingly considered not merely as a resource supporting economic and social development, but also an important influence on population health. However, linkages between social capital and mental health are complex.

To be well at heart: women's perceptions of psychosocial wellbeing in three conflict affected countries

The devastating effects of armed conflict on women's psychological and social wellbeing have been documented and studied in recent years, leading to the inclusion of psychosocial programmes as standard practice in humanitarian intervention with conflict affected women. However, they have rarely been asked to define and operationalise psychosocial wellbeing in their own voices and within their own context, and thus it has been difficult to determine the effectiveness of such programmes. This has left the evidence base for effectiveness thin.

Mediation of daily stressors on mental health within a conflict context: a qualitative study in Gaza

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (IASC, 2007) promote the provision of basic needs and community/family supports as key approaches to improve the overall wellbeing of people affected by crises, including conflict. However, positive impacts and/or evidence base for these initiatives, seen through the lens of psychological theory and research, are limited.

Experiences with Narrative Exposure Therapy across three income contexts

As members of an international nongovernmental organisation that operates across a variety of income contexts, and works with local counsellors to co-create local capacity in contexts ravaged by atrocities and deprivation, the authors offer their experiences with Narrative Exposure Therapy. The authors have found Narrative Exposure Therapy to be an effective clinical and training tool where practical considerations allow it. These considerations, including the high level of counsellor skill and the individual modality the therapy requires, should not be underestimated

Don't fault RCTs for not testing systems of care

Among Mundt and colleagues’ (2014) criticisms of NET is that testing a particular intervention implies that it is meant to be delivered irrespective of systems of care. But trauma-focused treatments should be judged based on the specific problems they target; larger sets of problems are the purview of health systems research.

Further thoughts on evaluating interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder in low and middle income countries

While agreeing that there are very few studies on Narrative Exposure Therapy, the author responds to the critique of Mundt et al. (elsewhere in this issue), by arguing that psychological interventions should not only, nor primarily, be evaluated by outcomes immediately after the end of the intervention. This is because psychological interventions, such as Narrative Exposure Therapy, aim to start a process of recovery that may continue long after treatment and eventually result in stronger change.

Do we really have enough evidence on Narrative Exposure Therapy to scale it up?

This invited commentary reflects on utilising Narrative Exposure Therapy protocols in very different cultural setting than those they were originally developed for, and is a response to Mundt et al. (this issue) and Neuner, Schauer & Elbert (this issue). The author discusses several key issues that should be considered, including: the allegiance effect, demand characteristics, clinical efficacy, and ecological validity.

Pages