Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40623750›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Mental health interventions for humanitarian volunteers: a scoping review.

Sarker Mohammad Nasrullah, Tanjamul Refat, Martina Emelia Gustavsson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarker Mohammad NasrullahDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden sarker.nasrullah01@northsouth.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2290-6896
Tanjamul RefatDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Martina Emelia GustavssonDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6193-6289

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this scoping review was to map the nature and extent of the existing literature on mental health interventions for humanitarian volunteers in disaster contexts. The study also explored how the interventions were evaluated.

designThe methodology of this scoping review followed the extended guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. DATA SOURCES: Five academic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar), grey literature websites (Google Scholar, ProQuest, Policy Commons, etc.) and relevant organisational archives were systematically searched for eligible documents. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Both peer-reviewed and grey literature studies on mental health interventions for humanitarian volunteers in the context of any type of disaster were eligible for inclusion. Research papers that evaluated any such intervention were also included. Documents that targeted professional humanitarian workers or explored physical health conditions or diseases in disaster contexts, letters to the editor, comments, correspondence and research protocols were excluded. There were no restrictions in terms of the date and language of the documents. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A systematic search of the targeted databases was conducted from 12 May 2025 to 20 May 2025. Deduplication, screening and full-text evaluation for the selection of documents were done using the online version of Rayyan. Data were collected and recorded into a structured Microsoft Excel sheet. Two researchers individually conducted the selection of the articles and the extraction of data. A third researcher helped to resolve any discrepancies if required.

resultsA total of 2627 documents were retrieved by searching the targeted databases and websites. After matching them with the eligibility criteria, 20 documents were included in the final list. 14 of them were research papers; the rest was organisational literature. All the papers were from 2006 and later, except one that was from 1998. No documents were found from the Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan regions. 10 broad categories of interventions were identified, which were either implemented in the field or suggested in the form of guidelines. Most of the interventions were postexposure and preventive in nature. Psychological first aid was the most widely used intervention in this context, being used by the national societies of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Nine of the documents were research papers evaluating the effectiveness of the interventions using different scales and customised questionnaires. Four of them did not observe any notable effect on the mental health of the participants.

conclusionsOver the past two decades, the evidence on mental health interventions for humanitarian volunteers has grown. The reviewed literature documented various interventions and guidelines that need further study and testing to both prove and improve their effectiveness. Organisational policies could incorporate and further evaluate these to ensure the psychosocial well-being of volunteers. A review of research papers on intervention effectiveness found heterogeneity in settings, designs, interventions and methods, precluding a systematic review. More research is needed on individual interventions, volunteer perceptions and comparing interventions to identify the most effective ones. Additionally, comparing pre-exposure and postexposure interventions with multimodal systems that support volunteers throughout deployment is recommended.

Indexed as

AltruismMental HealthRelief WorkVolunteersDisastersHumansMENTAL HEALTHPsychosocial InterventionReview

Identifiers

PMID40623750
PMCPMC12230954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.