Monitoring and Evaluating Psychosocial Intervention Outcomes in Humanitarian Aid

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10144/614813
Title:
Monitoring and Evaluating Psychosocial Intervention Outcomes in Humanitarian Aid
Authors:
de Jong, K; Ariti, C; van der Kam, S; Mooren, T; Shanks, L; Pintaldi, G; Kleber, R
Journal:
PLoS One
Abstract:
Existing tools for evaluating psychosocial interventions (un-validated self-reporting questionnaires) are not ideal for use in non-Western conflict settings. We implement a generic method of treatment evaluation, using client and counsellor feedback, in 18 projects in non-Western humanitarian settings. We discuss our findings from the perspective of validity and suggestions for future research. A retrospective analysis is executed using data gathered from psychosocial projects. Clients (n = 7,058) complete two (complaints and functioning) rating scales each session and counsellors rate the client's status at exit. The client-completed pre- and post-intervention rating scales show substantial changes. Counsellor evaluation of the clients' status shows a similar trend in improvement. All three multivariable models for each separate scale have similar associations between the scales and the investigated variables despite different cultural settings. The validity is good. Limitations are: ratings give only a general impression and clinical risk factors are not measured. Potential ceiling effects may influence change of scales. The intra and inter-rater reliability of the counsellors' rating is not assessed. The focus on client and counsellor perspectives to evaluate treatment outcome seems a strong alternative for evaluation instruments frequently used in psychosocial programming. The session client rated scales helps client and counsellor to set mutual treatment objectives and reduce drop-out risk. Further research should test the scales against a cross-cultural valid gold standard to obtain insight into their clinical relevance.
Publisher:
Public Library of Science
Issue Date:
17-Jun-2016
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10144/614813
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0157474
PubMed ID:
27315263
Submitted date:
2016-06-22
Language:
en
ISSN:
1932-6203
Appears in Collections:
Mental Health

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorde Jong, Ken
dc.contributor.authorAriti, Cen
dc.contributor.authorvan der Kam, Sen
dc.contributor.authorMooren, Ten
dc.contributor.authorShanks, Len
dc.contributor.authorPintaldi, Gen
dc.contributor.authorKleber, Ren
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-27T14:52:50Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-27T14:52:50Z-
dc.date.issued2016-06-17en
dc.date.submitted2016-06-22en
dc.identifier.citationMonitoring and Evaluating Psychosocial Intervention Outcomes in Humanitarian Aid. 2016, 11 (6):e0157474 PLoS ONEen
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203en
dc.identifier.pmid27315263en
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0157474en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10144/614813-
dc.description.abstractExisting tools for evaluating psychosocial interventions (un-validated self-reporting questionnaires) are not ideal for use in non-Western conflict settings. We implement a generic method of treatment evaluation, using client and counsellor feedback, in 18 projects in non-Western humanitarian settings. We discuss our findings from the perspective of validity and suggestions for future research. A retrospective analysis is executed using data gathered from psychosocial projects. Clients (n = 7,058) complete two (complaints and functioning) rating scales each session and counsellors rate the client's status at exit. The client-completed pre- and post-intervention rating scales show substantial changes. Counsellor evaluation of the clients' status shows a similar trend in improvement. All three multivariable models for each separate scale have similar associations between the scales and the investigated variables despite different cultural settings. The validity is good. Limitations are: ratings give only a general impression and clinical risk factors are not measured. Potential ceiling effects may influence change of scales. The intra and inter-rater reliability of the counsellors' rating is not assessed. The focus on client and counsellor perspectives to evaluate treatment outcome seems a strong alternative for evaluation instruments frequently used in psychosocial programming. The session client rated scales helps client and counsellor to set mutual treatment objectives and reduce drop-out risk. Further research should test the scales against a cross-cultural valid gold standard to obtain insight into their clinical relevance.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen
dc.rightsPublished by Public Library of Science, [url]http://www.plosone.org/[/url] Archived on this site by Open Access permissionen
dc.titleMonitoring and Evaluating Psychosocial Intervention Outcomes in Humanitarian Aiden
dc.identifier.journalPLoS Oneen
All Items in MSF are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.