Non-clinical Psychosocial Mental Health Support Programmes for People with Diverse Language and Cultural Backgrounds: A Critical Rapid Review

Résumé fourni par la source

Low accessibility to mainstream psychosocial services disadvantages culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations, resulting in delayed care and high rates of unsupported psychological distress. Non-clinical interventions may play an important role in improving accessibility to psychosocial support, but what characterises best practice in this space remains unclear. This critical rapid review addressed this gap by searching for, and critically analysing, existing research on non-clinical psychosocial support services, drawing from a critical realist framework and Brossard and Chandler's (Brossard and Chandler, Explaining mental illness: Sociological perspectives, Bristol University Press, 2022) taxonomy of positions on culture and mental health. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo, LILACS, Scopus and Sociological Abstracts to identify non-clinical psychosocial support interventions for first-generation immigrant CALD populations delivered by lay-health workers. Thirty-eight studies were included: 10 quantitative, 7 mixed-methods and 21 qualitative. Most studies were conducted in North America (n = 19) and Europe (n = 7), with few conducted in low-income countries (Tanzania and Lebanon, n = 3 each, Kenya [n = 1]). Studies often focussed on specific interventions (e.g. psychoeducation) for targeted populations (e.g. refugees, Latinx immigrants); multimodal interventions (e.g. psychological support and food distribution) for broad populations were less common. Thirty-five different outcome scales were identified across quantitative and mixed-methods studies, with most covering depression, stress and trauma. Most studies identified significant improvements for at least one psychosocial outcome despite interventions being relatively short in sessions. Findings from qualitative studies highlighted varied engagement with theory-informed models of service, and identified important barriers to non-clinical psychosocial support services, including precarious resourcing. Our analysis suggests most studies were underpinned by split-relativist frameworks and focussed on interventions aimed at helping clients navigate the eurocentricity and complexity of mainstream services. Recognising the eurocentrism of universalist frameworks, working from a culturally relativist position, prioritising social determinants of health and using models that centre clients, flexibility, context, culture and community are likely to ensure best practice for non-clinical psychosocial support interventions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.