Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools

Background The effects of disasters and conflicts are widespread and heavily studied. While attention to disasters’ impacts on mental health is growing, mental health effects are not well understood due to inconsistencies in measurement. Objective The purpose of this study is to review mental health...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ashley Moore, Joris Adriaan Frank van Loenhout, Maria Moitinho de Almeida, Pierre Smith, Debarati Guha-Sapir
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2020-12-01
Series:Global Health Action
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1783957
id doaj-2ae0e43db036471f81299e74577fff50
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2ae0e43db036471f81299e74577fff502021-09-20T13:59:58ZengTaylor & Francis GroupGlobal Health Action1654-98802020-12-0113110.1080/16549716.2020.17839571783957Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment toolsAshley Moore0Joris Adriaan Frank van Loenhout1Maria Moitinho de Almeida2Pierre Smith3Debarati Guha-Sapir4Yale University School of Public HealthUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversité Catholique de LouvainBackground The effects of disasters and conflicts are widespread and heavily studied. While attention to disasters’ impacts on mental health is growing, mental health effects are not well understood due to inconsistencies in measurement. Objective The purpose of this study is to review mental health assessment tools and their use in populations affected by disasters and conflicts. Method Tools that assess posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, substance use disorder, and general mental health were examined. This review began with a search for assessment tools in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Next, validation studies for the tools were obtained through snowball sampling. A final search was conducted for scientific studies using the selected tools in humanitarian settings to collect the data for analysis. The benefits and limitations described for each tool were compiled into a complete table. Results Twelve assessment tools were included, with 88 studies using them. The primary findings indicate that half of the studies used the Impact of Events Scale-Revised. The most common limitation discussed is that self-report tools inaccurately estimate the prevalence of mental health problems. This inaccuracy is further exacerbated by a lack of cultural appropriateness of the tools, as many are developed for Western contexts. Conclusion It is recommended that researchers and humanitarian workers reflect on the effectiveness of the mental health assessment tool they use to accurately represent the populations under study in emergency settings. In addition, mental health assessment should be coupled with action.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1783957disastersmental health assessmentemergencieshumanitariantrauma
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ashley Moore
Joris Adriaan Frank van Loenhout
Maria Moitinho de Almeida
Pierre Smith
Debarati Guha-Sapir
spellingShingle Ashley Moore
Joris Adriaan Frank van Loenhout
Maria Moitinho de Almeida
Pierre Smith
Debarati Guha-Sapir
Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools
Global Health Action
disasters
mental health assessment
emergencies
humanitarian
trauma
author_facet Ashley Moore
Joris Adriaan Frank van Loenhout
Maria Moitinho de Almeida
Pierre Smith
Debarati Guha-Sapir
author_sort Ashley Moore
title Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools
title_short Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools
title_full Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools
title_fullStr Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools
title_full_unstemmed Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools
title_sort measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Global Health Action
issn 1654-9880
publishDate 2020-12-01
description Background The effects of disasters and conflicts are widespread and heavily studied. While attention to disasters’ impacts on mental health is growing, mental health effects are not well understood due to inconsistencies in measurement. Objective The purpose of this study is to review mental health assessment tools and their use in populations affected by disasters and conflicts. Method Tools that assess posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, substance use disorder, and general mental health were examined. This review began with a search for assessment tools in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Next, validation studies for the tools were obtained through snowball sampling. A final search was conducted for scientific studies using the selected tools in humanitarian settings to collect the data for analysis. The benefits and limitations described for each tool were compiled into a complete table. Results Twelve assessment tools were included, with 88 studies using them. The primary findings indicate that half of the studies used the Impact of Events Scale-Revised. The most common limitation discussed is that self-report tools inaccurately estimate the prevalence of mental health problems. This inaccuracy is further exacerbated by a lack of cultural appropriateness of the tools, as many are developed for Western contexts. Conclusion It is recommended that researchers and humanitarian workers reflect on the effectiveness of the mental health assessment tool they use to accurately represent the populations under study in emergency settings. In addition, mental health assessment should be coupled with action.
topic disasters
mental health assessment
emergencies
humanitarian
trauma
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1783957
work_keys_str_mv AT ashleymoore measuringmentalhealthburdeninhumanitariansettingsacriticalreviewofassessmenttools
AT jorisadriaanfrankvanloenhout measuringmentalhealthburdeninhumanitariansettingsacriticalreviewofassessmenttools
AT mariamoitinhodealmeida measuringmentalhealthburdeninhumanitariansettingsacriticalreviewofassessmenttools
AT pierresmith measuringmentalhealthburdeninhumanitariansettingsacriticalreviewofassessmenttools
AT debaratiguhasapir measuringmentalhealthburdeninhumanitariansettingsacriticalreviewofassessmenttools
_version_ 1717374132912390144