Challenges to mental health services for refugees: a
global perspective
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7801830/
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does
not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes
of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
. 2021 Jan 12;20(1):131–132. doi: 10.1002/wps.20818
PMCID: PMC7801830 PMID: 33432744
Considerable progress has been made over recent decades in formulating models of care
and implementing mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) services for refugees
worldwide 1 . The challenges in providing services to this population are being greatly
increased by the COVID‐19 crisis. At the same time, the World Health Organization has
provided impetus to supporting refugees, including in the MHPSS field, by adopting a Global
Action Plan extending over the next four years 2 . It is timely, therefore, to draw on the
lessons of past decades to consider what steps will assist in advancing MHPSS services for
refugees around the globe.
The principles underpinning all MHPSS activities in this field are well established, including a
commitment to human rights, cultural integrity and right to regain autonomy of all refugees.
Moreover, communities need to be empowered to participate in, and where possible lead,
MHPSS programs, a principle that focuses central attention on capacity building and skills
development in all MHPSS activities.
Guidelines in place for over a decade also direct attention towards the subpopulations in
need of special MHPSS attention, including those with severe and disabling mental
disorders, and those with more common forms of traumatic stress, mood and anxiety
disorders. Also well documented are the core MHPSS activities, including the provision of
generic community mental health services, structured psychotherapy programs, and non‐
clinical psychosocial programs aimed at promoting self‐help and resilience in the community
as a whole 3 .
The immediate challenge facing the field, however, revolves around the issue of scarcity of
resources, a constraint that requires careful matching of selective components to the most
urgent MHPSS needs of each population. The size of the population need underscores this
1/3
principle. A record 80 million persons currently are displaced, representing one percent of
the world’s population. The majority are internally displaced or asylum seekers in countries
where MHPSS services are at a low level of development.
Pooled epidemiological data indicate that, on average, 30% of these populations experience
ongoing symptoms of depression, anxiety and/or post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 4 ,
and one in 10 meet criteria for moderate or severe forms of mental disorder 5 . Even
discounting these numbers based on natural remission, the size of the population in need of
MHPSS services far exceeds the skills base and material resources available to provide
equitable interventions at a global level.
Systematic baseline assessments facilitate the process of priority‐setting and include
consideration of the community’s exposure to persecution, violence and loss; the point in the
trajectory of displacement where the population is located; the inherent cultural and social
strengths and skills base of each group; the threats, assets and enablers for social and
economic recovery in the immediate context; and the availability of external support for
MHPSS services.
The difficulty is that, in real life situations, many influences dictate the choice of interventions
in any setting, including the idiosyncratic preference of donors, lobby groups or implementing
agencies. Standardization of assessments, systematic decision‐making and transparency in
the process would greatly facilitate a more rational allocation of resources in each setting.
In the early aftermath of humanitarian crises, persons with mental illness manifesting bizarre
or disorganized behaviour are at high risk of abandonment and neglect, falling physically ill,
being injured or assaulted, or experiencing abuse and exploitation. Psychiatric diagnosis is
only a broad indicator of need, given that individuals with a wide range of problems may
reach a point of social crisis in these settings. As a consequence, services need to be
prepared to deal with a range of people, including those with psychotic disorders; delirium or
dementia; depression and other emotional disorders; medically unexplained somatic
complaints; and adjustment disorder associated with self‐harm or dangerous behaviours 6 .
In some settings, mental health services are also the only source of intervention for persons
with epilepsy, alcohol and substance use disorders, and intellectual disability or
developmental disorders.
Low‐cost mobile emergency teams led by psychiatrists and other mental health
professionals, supported by community health teams of workers provided with intensive
training and ongoing supervision, can provide psychotropic medications and social and
family support in these unstable settings, averting the need for inpatient care except in the
extreme instances.
2/3
In more stable environments, such as refugee camps or urban settings, it may be feasible to
introduce more systematic programs of psychological therapies for PTSD, complicated grief
reactions, and other common mental disorders such as depression. Models of
psychotherapy tend to apply overlapping techniques derived from cognitive behavioural and
other evidence‐based strategies used in high‐income countries, although adapted to the
local culture and context 7 . Some programs are based more explicitly on cultural concepts of
mental health and/or psychosocial models that are specific to refugees 8 . The use of
operationalized training and treatment manuals, and the recruitment of indigenous lay or
primary health care workers to administer therapies under supervision, add to the logistic
feasibility and cost‐containment of these programs. Typically, supervision is provided on site
and continued via remote, digital communication by expatriate professionals.
In general, these interventions have produced positive outcomes in the short term 8 , but less
is known about whether these effects are maintained over time. The capacity to embed these
programs securely within routine community services also needs to be demonstrated.
However, the early success of these programs represents a milestone in demonstrating the
potential for MHPSS services to make a major contribution to the overall humanitarian relief
effort.
In high‐income countries, refugees constitute two distinct populations based on immigration
policy: permanent refugees, who receive full access to public mental health and resettlement
services, and asylum seekers without permanent residency status, who are subjected to
restrictions and, in some cases, held in detention for prolonged periods of time 9 . In some
settings, only permanent refugees have access to MHPSS services provided by specialist
refugee agencies. An extensive body of research has demonstrated that the post‐migration
living difficulties experienced by asylum seekers exert a detrimental effect on their mental
health, both in the short and medium term. Moreover, practitioners in the field confront major
obstacles and ethical challenges in attempting to provide optimal care to this group.
It is vital that the field ensures that the basic principles of human rights and equity are upheld
in planning MHPSS services in the future. A global focus requires that careful decisions are
made regarding the allocation of resources, in order to provide equitable access to MHPSS
services. Given the vagaries of funding, there is a temptation to focus on populations and
contexts that most readily garner support by donor countries and other sources. As an
exemplar of practice in the humanitarian field, the MHPSS community needs to counteract
this tendency, by arguing assertively for the equitable distribution of resources to all those in
need. At the front‐line, it is vital to uphold the principles of ethical practice, and support
colleagues in so doing, especially when working in politically charged situations.
3/3
