ArticlePloS one2018
Measuring and modelling the quality of 40 post-disaster mental health and psychosocial support programmes.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Provision of Evidence-Informed Psychological Interventions Following the Queensland (Australia) 2010-11 Floods and Cyclones; the Barriers and Successes.The Australian journal of rural health · 2025Article
- State of the art on the main intervention methodologies in the field of emergency psychology: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Managing the Psychosocial Aftermath of the Rajaee Port Blast in Southern Iran: Quick Emergency Response in the First Month After the Blast.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
- Essential core competencies for health policy graduates: a multi-method consensus type study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Opportunistic Mental Health Screening: Is there a Role Following a Disaster? Lessons from the 2010-2011 Queensland (Australia) Floods and Cyclones.Prehospital and disaster medicine · 2023Article
- Appraising Evidence-Based Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Guidelines-PART II: A Content Analysis with Implications for Disaster Risk Reduction.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Online One-Stop Shop for Disaster Response Services After the MH17 Airplane Crash: An Evaluation Study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Ethical and psychosocial considerations for hospital personnel in the Covid-19 crisis: Moral injury and resilience.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Literature Review on Psychosocial Support for Disaster Responders: Qualitative Synthesis with Recommended Actions for Protecting and Promoting the Mental Health of Responders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Post-disaster mental health and psychosocial support in the areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake: a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- The organization of post-disaster psychosocial support in the Netherlands: a meta-synthesis.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2019Review
- Psychological Support for Earthquake Survivors in Turkey and Syria.Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shockArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disasters can have an enormous impact on the health and well-being of those affected. Internationally, governments and service providers are often challenged to address complex psychosocial problems. Ideally, the potentially broad range of support activities include a coherent, high-quality mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) programme. We present a theory-driven quantitative analysis of the quality of 40 MHPSS programmes, mostly implemented in European disaster settings. The objective is to measure quality domains recognized as relevant in the literature and to empirically test associations. During the EU project "Operationalizing Psychosocial Support in Crisis" (OPSIC) an evaluation survey was designed and developed for this purpose and completed by 40 MHPSS programme coordinators involved in different mass emergencies and disasters. We analysed the survey data in two steps. Firstly, we used the data to operationalize quality domains of a MHPSS programme, tested constructs and assessed their internal consistency reliability. A total of 26 out of 44 survey items clustered into three of the four domains identified within the theoretical framework: "planning and delivery system" (Cronbach's alpha 0.82); "general evaluation criteria" (Cronbach's alpha 0.82); and "essential psychosocial principles" (Cronbach's alpha 0.75). "Measures and interventions applied", theoretically a potential fourth domain, could not be confirmed to empirically cluster together. Secondly, several models with associations between domains and measures and interventions were tested and compared. The model with the best fit suggests that in MHPSS programmes with a higher planning and delivery systems score, a larger number of measures and interventions from evidence-informed guidelines are applied. In such programmes, coordinators are more positive about general evaluation criteria and the realization of essential psychosocial principles. Moreover, the analyses showed that some measures and interventions are more likely to be applied in programmes with more evolved planning and delivery systems, yet for most measures and interventions the likelihood of being applied is not linked to planning and delivery system status, nor to coordinator perceptions concerning psychosocial principles and evaluation criteria. Further research is necessary to validate and expand the findings and to learn more about success factors and obstacles for MHPSS programme implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.