ArticlePLOS mental health2026
Stakeholder perspectives on the scalability of a psychological intervention for alcohol misuse and psychological distress in wartime: A qualitative study in Ukraine.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The war in Ukraine has intensified mental health vulnerabilities, including alcohol misuse among conflict-affected men. The CHANGE intervention, a transdiagnostic mental health programme building on WHO's Problem Management Plus (PM+), addresses alcohol misuse and common mental disorders among conflict-affected populations. This study explores stakeholder perspectives on the scalability of CHANGE under active wartime conditions in Ukraine. Here, scalability refers to the potential for future scale-up rather than retrospective evaluation of actual scale-up, feasibility or effectiveness. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted online interviews with 20 stakeholders: 13 implementers, 2 adopters, and 5 maintainers. Perceived barriers in the outer setting included limited primary care referrals, lack of policy integration, societal stigma, normalization of alcohol use, competition among service providers, intersectoral trust gaps regarding NGOs and funding instability. Inner setting barriers included psychological distress among implementers and payment instability. Perceived facilitators across CFIR domains included established multisectoral partnerships, a supportive organizational environment, team professionalism, and strong motivation for implementation. The war introduced additional barriers, including service disruptions, insecurity and economic hardship. At the same time, the online adaptation of the intervention, and increased community engagement around mental health needs emerged as key facilitators. Suggested implementation strategies focused on strengthening stakeholder relationships, ensuring continues training and supervision, and engaging service users through awareness campaigns. Overall, findings from CHANGE provide contextually grounded insights for scaling psychological interventions in humanitarian and conflict-affected settings globally.
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.