ArticleBMJ public health2026
Acceptability, feasibility and perceived benefits of integrating mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) into disease outbreak response in Western Uganda: a qualitative process evaluation study.
Article in BMJ public 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Disease outbreaks cause widespread suffering, loss of lives and significantly increase the risk of mental health and psychosocial problems. Although mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) plays a critical role in addressing the needs of populations affected by outbreaks, limited efforts have been made to integrate MHPSS into outbreak response mechanisms. In this study, we developed, implemented and evaluated priority MHPSS interventions to examine acceptability, feasibility and perceived benefit of MHPSS interventions as part of outbreak response in Uganda. Methods: The interventions were implemented in Bundibugyo district, Western Uganda, from November 2024 to March 2025 and evaluated through a qualitative process evaluation. The interventions targeted primary healthcare workers, frontline responders, community leaders and district health team leaders. Study participants were selected purposively and data were collected through in-depth interviews. We used a thematic analysis combined with inductive and deductive approaches to capture emerging themes. Results: We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 purposively selected individuals representing community members, implementers and public health leaders. Participants perceived the interventions to be acceptable due to active engagement with the community leaders, community health workers, district leadership and collaboration with the local media. The findings strongly suggest that the programme was feasible because it was deliberately designed and systematically implemented with a community-driven approach. The feasibility of the programme was reflected across five key constructs: practicality, cultural appropriateness, perceived benefit, sustainability and implementation challenges. Participants reported that the interventions helped address serious mental health concerns, including reducing the risk of self-harm, suicide and stigma, while equipping frontline workers with stress management skills. Conclusion: Despite the high level of acceptability and feasibility reported, several challenges may hinder the uptake and scale-up of MHPSS interventions in outbreak-affected communities, particularly stigma and misconceptions surrounding mental health conditions. These challenges highlight the requirement for sustained community engagement and continuous sensitisation efforts.
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.