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 interventions yield additional effectiveness over and above their non-adapted counterparts. School-based and group programs for refugee children and high-support living environments for unaccompanied minors have been shown to improve children’s mental health. A number of additional interventions for refugee adults and children have inconclusive effects or moderate support. Finally, digital technologies including telehealth, online interventions, and video games show promising results for increasing access to care as well as improving outcomes.
- PUBLISHED BY
- Date
- Topic(s)
- Subtopic(s)
- Population(s)
What works to improve mental health of refugee children and adults?
Included Studies
Search protocol
Studies included in the database focused on high-income or upper middle-income countries, including but not limited to the United States. Studies included must have been published since 2000. To identify evidence, we searched the following websites and databases using the following population, methodology, and target problem terms:
| Websites and Databases | Population Terms | Methodology Terms | Target Problem Terms |
|
Campbell Collaboration Cochrane Collaboration Mathematica Policy Research Evidence Aid |
refugee |
evaluation OR |
“mental health” OR |
For databases or websites that permitted only basic searches, free-text terms and limited term combinations were selected out of the lists above, and all resultant studies were reviewed for relevance. Conversely, for databases or websites with advanced search capability, we made use of relevant filters available. All search terms were searched in the title and abstract fields only in order to exclude studies that made only passing mention of the topic under consideration.
After initial screening, Switchboard evidence mapping is prioritized as follows: First priority is given to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, followed by individual impact evaluations when no meta-analyses or systematic reviews are available. Evaluations that are rated as impact evidence are considered before those rated as suggestive, with the latter only being included for outcomes where no evidence is available from the former.
