Efficacy of Psychological Interventions on Depression Anxiety and Somatization in Migrants: A Meta-analysis

Year Published:

Abstract

Many studies reveal the effectiveness of different psychological interventions on the adult refugees reporting mental health distress. Aim of this metanalysis was to test the efficacy of different psychological treatments on the depressive, anxiety and somatization symptoms on refugees and asylum seekers. Fifty-two studies, since 1997 to 2019, were included in the systematic review and 27 of those were included in the metanalysis. Studies providing a pre and post-treatment methodological design were included. All treatments reported significant effects on the three outcomes. Qualitative observations showed a probability to have a significant pre-post treatment effects on trials with outcome of depression (56%), anxiety (44%), and somatization (42%). Cognitive-behavioral treatment resulted the most effective treatment. The status of refugee compared to the status of asylum seeker seems to have a great effect on the effectiveness of the treatment.

Citation

Relevant Evidence Summaries

The evidence was reviewed and included in the following summaries: 

What works to improve mental health of refugee children and adults?

There is very strong evidence that numerous interventions are effective in improving the mental health of child and adult refugees. Specifically, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), trauma-focused interventions (TF), and psycho-education (PE) have been shown to improve symptoms related to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and/or general distress in refugee populations. Furthermore, cultural adaptations of these […]

About this study

AGE: Adults

DIRECTION OF EVIDENCE: Inconclusive or mixed impact

FULL TEXT AVAILABILITY: Free

GENDER: All

HOST COUNTRY: Multiple countries

HOST COUNTRY INCOME: Both

INTERVENTION DURATION: Various

OUTCOME AREA: Anxiety Reduction

POPULATION: Refugees

REGION OF ORIGIN OF PARTICIPANT(S): Multiple Regions

STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Strong

TYPE OF STUDY: Meta-analysis

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2020

More STUDIES