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...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |