ArticleGlobal mental health (Cambridge, England)2025
A qualitative process evaluation of group problem management plus for distressed Syrian refugees in Türkiye.
Article in Global mental health (Cambridge, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Syrian refugees in Türkiye show a high prevalence of mental health problems but encounter barriers to accessing mental health services. Group Problem Management Plus (gPM+), developed by the World Health Organization, is a low-intensity psychological intervention delivered by nonspecialist facilitators. This qualitative process evaluation explores the acceptability, feasibility and perceived effectiveness of gPM+ for Syrian refugees resettled in Türkiye, as well as facilitating factors and barriers to its implementation. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with gPM+ participants, facilitators, drop-outs, relatives of participants and key informants. Findings showed that gPM+ was well-received for its group-based format, which participants felt fostered social support, and for its content, which they reported may have led to improvements in coping skills and family relationships. Facilitators viewed the intervention as feasible to implement. However, barriers such as participants' economic struggles, practical challenges (e.g., childcare and transportation difficulties) and low mental health literacy impeded engagement. Adapting gPM+ to address social determinants like poverty may be beneficial. The need for booster sessions was emphasized to maintain long-term change and provide deeper learning of the strategies. For sustainable scaling up gPM+ within primary health care, key informants highlighted the importance of training and supervising nonprofessional facilitators and securing governmental support.
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.