• Posts

FILES



Summary PDF: What works to improve mental health of refugee children and adults?

M&E | Track Resource Download
  • PUBLISHED BY
  • Date
  • Topic(s)
   Health, Mental Health and Wellness
  • Subtopic(s)
   Behavioral Health Care
  • Population(s)

SHARE

What works to improve mental health of refugee children and adults?

There is very strong evidence that numerous interventions are effective in improving the mental health of child and adult refugees. Specifically, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), trauma-focused interventions (TF), and psycho-education (PE) have been shown to improve symptoms related to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and/or general distress in refugee populations. Furthermore, cultural adaptations of these interventions yield additional effectiveness over and above their non-adapted counterparts. School-based and group programs for refugee children and high-support living environments for unaccompanied minors have been shown to improve children’s mental health. A number of additional interventions for refugee adults and children have inconclusive effects or moderate support. Finally, digital technologies including telehealth, online interventions, and video games show promising results for increasing access to care as well as improving outcomes.

Post TitleStrength of EvidenceType of StudyDirection of Evidence
The management of volunteers – What can human resources do? A review and research agendaInconclusive or mixed impactSuggestive evidenceInconclusive or mixed impact
Predictors of turnover amongst volunteers: A systematic review and meta-analysisInconclusive or mixed impactMeta-analysisInconclusive or mixed impact
Leadership and volunteers’ experiences in nonprofit organizations: A systematic literature reviewPositive impactSystematic reviewPositive impact
Designing and managing volunteer programsNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
High-performance human resource practices and volunteer engagement: The role of empowerment and organizational identificationNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Feelings of ownership and volunteering: Examining psychological ownership as a volunteering motivation for nonprofit service organizationsNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
The relationship between leadership behaviors and volunteer commitment: The role of volunteer satisfactionNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Nonprofit brand heritage: Its ability to influence volunteer retention, engagement, and satisfactionNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Communicating our way to engaged volunteers: A mediated process model of volunteer communication, engagement, and commitmentPositive impactSuggestive evidencePositive impact
Emotions matter: Understanding the relationship between drivers of volunteering and participationNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Evidence-based volunteer management: A review of the literatureInconclusive or mixed impactSystematic reviewInconclusive or mixed impact
The role of reconfiguring volunteer management in nonprofits in Hong Kong: Benefits and discontentsInconclusive or mixed impactSuggestive evidenceInconclusive or mixed impact
Unpacking the volunteer experience: The influence of volunteer management on retention and the promotion of the organizationNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Strategic leadership and management in nonprofit organizations: Theory and practiceNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact
Direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on volunteers’ intention to remain at non-profit organizationsPositive impactSuggestive evidencePositive impact
Behind the crowdsourcing platform: Assessing volunteer recruitment and engagement instrumentsPositive impactSuggestive evidencePositive impact
Recruitment of volunteers with immigrant backgrounds: The impact of structural and individual aspectsNo evidence about impactSuggestive evidenceNo evidence about impact

Studies included in the database focused on high-income or upper middle-income countries, including but not limited to the United States. Studies included must have been published since 2012. To identify evidence, we searched the following websites and databases using the following population, methodology, and target outcome terms:

Websites and Databases Population Terms Methodology Terms Target Outcome Terms
Campbell Collaboration

Cochrane Collaboration

Mathematica Policy Research

Urban Institute

Migration Policy Institute

CINAHL

ASSIA

Social Services Abstracts

Social Work Abstracts

PsycInfo

ERIC

 

 Nonprofit

OR

NGO

OR

“nongovernmental organization”

OR

CBO

OR

“community based organization”

OR

ECBO

OR

“ethnic community based organization”

OR

“non profit organization”

OR

non-profit

OR

“not for profit organization”

 

 evaluation

OR

impact

OR

program

OR

intervention

OR

policy

OR

project

OR

train*

OR

therapy

OR

treatment

OR

counseling

OR

workshop

OR

review

OR

meta-analysis

OR

synthesis

 “volunteer recruitment”

OR

“volunteer retention”

OR

“volunteer engagement”

OR

“volunteer management”

For databases or websites that permitted only basic searches, free-text terms and limited term combinations were selected out of the lists above, and all resultant studies were reviewed for relevance. Conversely, for databases or websites with advanced search capability, we made use of relevant available filters. All terms were searched in the title and abstract fields only to exclude studies that made only passing mention of the topic under consideration.

After initial screening, Switchboard evidence mapping is prioritized as follows: Priority is given to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, followed by individual impact evaluations when no meta-analyses or systematic reviews are available. Evaluations that are rated as impact evidence are considered before those rated as suggestive, with the latter only being included for outcomes where no evidence is available from the former.