IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of a brief behavioural intervention on psychological distress among women with a history of gender-based violence in urban Kenya: A randomised clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Richard A Bryant
  • Alison Schafer
  • Katie S Dawson
  • Dorothy Anjuri
  • Caroline Mulili
  • Lincoln Ndogoni
  • Phiona Koyiet
  • Marit Sijbrandij
  • Jeannette Ulate
  • Melissa Harper Shehadeh
  • Dusan Hadzi-Pavlovic
  • Mark van Ommeren

Abstract

Background: Gender-based violence (GBV) represents a major cause of psychological morbidity worldwide, and particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although there are effective treatments for common mental disorders associated with GBV, they typically require lengthy treatment programs that may limit scaling up in LMICs. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a new 5-session behavioural treatment called Problem Management Plus (PM+) that lay community workers can be taught to deliver. Methods and findings: In this single-blind, parallel, randomised controlled trial, adult women who had experienced GBV were identified through community screening for psychological distress and impaired functioning in Nairobi, Kenya. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio either to PM+ delivered in the community by lay community health workers provided with 8 days of training or to facility-based enhanced usual care (EUC) provided by community nurses. Participants were aware of treatment allocation, but research assessors were blinded. The primary outcome was psychological distress as measured by the total score on the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) assessed at 3 months after treatment. Secondary outcomes were impaired functioning (measured by the WHO Disability Adjustment Schedule [WHODAS]), symptoms of posttraumatic stress (measured by the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist [PCL]), personally identified problems (measured by Psychological Outcome Profiles [PSYCHLOPS]), stressful life events (measured by the Life Events Checklist [LEC]), and health service utilisation. Between 15 April 2015 and 20 August 2015, 1,393 women were screened for eligibility on the basis of psychological distress and impaired functioning. Of these, 518 women (37%) screened positive, of whom 421 (81%) were women who had experienced GBV. Of these 421 women, 209 were assigned to PM+ and 212 to EUC. Follow-up assessments were completed on 16 January 2016. The primary analysis was intention to treat and included 53 women in PM+ (25%) and 49 women in EUC (23%) lost to follow-up. The difference between PM+ and EUC in the change from baseline to 3 months on the GHQ-12 was 3.33 (95% CI 1.86–4.79, P = 0.001) in favour of PM+. In terms of secondary outcomes, for WHODAS the difference between PM+ and EUC in the change from baseline to 3-month follow-up was 1.96 (95% CI 0.21–3.71, P = 0.03), for PCL it was 3.95 (95% CI 0.06–7.83, P = 0.05), and for PSYCHLOPS it was 2.15 (95% CI 0.98–3.32, P = 0.001), all in favour of PM+. These estimated differences correspond to moderate effect sizes in favour of PM+ for GHQ-12 score (0.57, 95% CI 0.32–0.83) and PSYCHLOPS (0.67, 95% CI 0.31–1.03), and small effect sizes for WHODAS (0.26, 95% CI 0.02–0.50) and PCL (0.21, 95% CI 0.00–0.41). Twelve adverse events were reported, all of which were suicidal risks detected during screening. No adverse events were attributable to the interventions or the trial. Limitations of the study include no long-term follow-up, reliance on self-report rather than structured interview data, and lack of an attention control condition. Conclusions: Among a community sample of women in urban Kenya with a history of GBV, a brief, lay-administered behavioural intervention, compared with EUC, resulted in moderate reductions in psychological distress at 3-month follow-up. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001291673 In this clinical trial in Kenya, Richard A. Bryant of the University of New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues show that a brief behavioral intervention of up to five sessions administered by community lay workers can reduce psychological distress among women who have experienced gender-based violence.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Richard A Bryant & Alison Schafer & Katie S Dawson & Dorothy Anjuri & Caroline Mulili & Lincoln Ndogoni & Phiona Koyiet & Marit Sijbrandij & Jeannette Ulate & Melissa Harper Shehadeh & Dusan Hadzi-Pav, 2017. "Effectiveness of a brief behavioural intervention on psychological distress among women with a history of gender-based violence in urban Kenya: A randomised clinical trial," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002371
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002371
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002371&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002371?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amaral, Sofia & Dinarte-Diaz, Lelys & Dominguez, Patricio & Perez-Vincent, Santiago M., 2024. "Helping families help themselves: The (Un)intended impacts of a digital parenting program," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    2. Johannes Haushofer & Robert Mudida & Jeremy P. Shapiro, 2020. "The Comparative Impact of Cash Transfers and a Psychotherapy Program on Psychological and Economic Well-being," NBER Working Papers 28106, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Annett Lotzin & Alicia Franc de Pommereau & Isabelle Laskowsky, 2023. "Promoting Recovery from Disasters, Pandemics, and Trauma: A Systematic Review of Brief Psychological Interventions to Reduce Distress in Adults, Children, and Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(7), pages 1-48, March.
    4. Michael Vlassopoulos & Abu Siddique & Tabassum Rahman & Debayan Pakrashi & Asad Islam & Firoz Ahmed, 2024. "Improving Women's Mental Health during a Pandemic," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 422-455, April.
    5. Hannah Metzler, 2023. "Evaluation 1 of "The Comparative Impact of Cash Transfers and a Psychotherapy Program on Psychological and Economic Well-being"," The Unjournal Evaluations 2023-41, The Unjournal.
    6. Samantha C Winter & Lena Moraa Obara & Sarah McMahon, 2020. "Intimate partner violence: A key correlate of women’s physical and mental health in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Lawrence A. Palinkas & Meaghan L. O’Donnell & Winnie Lau & Marleen Wong, 2020. "Strategies for Delivering Mental Health Services in Response to Global Climate Change: A Narrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Daniel P. Lakin & Claudia García-Moreno & Elisabeth Roesch, 2022. "Psychological Interventions for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence in Humanitarian Settings: An Overview of the Evidence and Implementation Considerations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Siddique, Abu & Islam, Asad & Mozumder, Tanvir Ahmed & Rahman, Tabassum & Shatil, Tanvir, 2022. "Forced Displacement, Mental Health, and Child Development: Evidence from the Rohingya Refugees," SocArXiv b4fc7, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.