Effectiveness of a stepped‐care programme of WHO psychological interventions in a population of migrants: results from the RESPOND randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Migrant populations – including labour migrants, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move – are exposed to a variety of stressors that affect their mental health. We designed and tested the effectiveness of a stepped‐care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and locally adapted for migrant populations. A parallel‐group randomized controlled trial was conducted in Italy. We recruited migrant adults (≥18 years) with psychological distress (score of at least 16 on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, K10). The experimental arm received psychological first aid (PFA) and a stepped‐care programme consisting of two WHO interventions adapted for this population group: first, Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM) and, for participants who still reported significant levels of psychological distress after DWM, Problem Management Plus (PM+). Each intervention lasted 5‐6 weeks and was delivered remotely by lay facilitators. The control arm received PFA and care as usual (CAU). The primary outcome was the change in symptoms of depression and anxiety from baseline to week 21 after randomization, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ‐ADS). Between December 14, 2021 and April 18, 2023, 108 migrants were randomized to the stepped‐care intervention and 109 to CAU. Analysis of the primary…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.