Theresa S Betancourt1, Jenna M Berent2, Jordan Freeman2, Rochelle L Frounfelker3, Robert T Brennan4, Saida Abdi5, Ali Maalim2, Abdirahman Abdi2, Tej Mishra2, Bhuwan Gautam2, John W Creswell6, William R Beardslee7. 1. Research Program on Children and Adversity, Boston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. Electronic address: theresa.betancourt@bc.edu. 2. Research Program on Children and Adversity, Boston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 4. Research Program on Children and Adversity, Boston College School of Social Work, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts; Women's Studies Research Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts. 5. Refugee Trauma and Resilience Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, St. Ann Arbor, Michigan; College of Education and Human Services, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. 7. College of Education and Human Services, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska; Judge Baker Children's Center, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are disparities in mental health of refugee youth compared with the general U.S. POPULATION: We conducted a pilot feasibility and acceptability trial of the home-visiting Family Strengthening Intervention for refugees (FSI-R) using a community-based participatory research approach. The FSI-R aims to promote youth mental health and family relationships. We hypothesized that FSI-R families would have better psychosocial outcomes and family functioning postintervention compared with care-as-usual (CAU) families. We hypothesized that FSI-R would be feasible to implement and accepted by communities. METHODS:A total of 40 Somali Bantu (n = 103 children, 58.40% female; n = 43 caregivers, 79.00% female) and 40 Bhutanese (n = 49 children, 55.30% female; n = 62 caregivers, 54.00% female) families were randomized to receive FSI-R or CAU. Refugee research assistants conducted psychosocial assessments pre- and post-intervention, and home visitors delivered the preventive intervention. Multilevel modeling assessed the effects of FSI-R. Feasibility was measured from retention, and acceptability was measured from satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: The retention rate of 82.50% indicates high feasibility, and high reports of satisfaction (81.50%) indicate community acceptance. Across communities, FSI-R children reported reduced traumatic stress reactions, and caregivers reported fewer child depression symptoms compared with CAU families (β = -.42; p = .03; β = -.34; p = .001). Bhutanese FSI-R children reported reduced family arguing (β = -1.32; p = .04) and showed fewer depression symptoms and conduct problems by parent report (β = -9.20; p = .04; β = -.92; p = .01) compared with CAU. There were no significant differences by group on other measures. CONCLUSIONS: A family-based home-visiting preventive intervention can be feasible and acceptable and has promise for promoting mental health and family functioning among refugees. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: There are disparities in mental health of refugee youth compared with the general U.S. POPULATION: We conducted a pilot feasibility and acceptability trial of the home-visiting Family Strengthening Intervention for refugees (FSI-R) using a community-based participatory research approach. The FSI-R aims to promote youth mental health and family relationships. We hypothesized that FSI-R families would have better psychosocial outcomes and family functioning postintervention compared with care-as-usual (CAU) families. We hypothesized that FSI-R would be feasible to implement and accepted by communities. METHODS: A total of 40 Somali Bantu (n = 103 children, 58.40% female; n = 43 caregivers, 79.00% female) and 40 Bhutanese (n = 49 children, 55.30% female; n = 62 caregivers, 54.00% female) families were randomized to receive FSI-R or CAU. Refugee research assistants conducted psychosocial assessments pre- and post-intervention, and home visitors delivered the preventive intervention. Multilevel modeling assessed the effects of FSI-R. Feasibility was measured from retention, and acceptability was measured from satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: The retention rate of 82.50% indicates high feasibility, and high reports of satisfaction (81.50%) indicate community acceptance. Across communities, FSI-R children reported reduced traumatic stress reactions, and caregivers reported fewer childdepression symptoms compared with CAU families (β = -.42; p = .03; β = -.34; p = .001). Bhutanese FSI-R children reported reduced family arguing (β = -1.32; p = .04) and showed fewer depression symptoms and conduct problems by parent report (β = -9.20; p = .04; β = -.92; p = .01) compared with CAU. There were no significant differences by group on other measures. CONCLUSIONS: A family-based home-visiting preventive intervention can be feasible and acceptable and has promise for promoting mental health and family functioning among refugees. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Family functioning; Intervention; Prevention; Refugees; Youth mental health
Authors: Barbara A Israel; Chris M Coombe; Rebecca R Cheezum; Amy J Schulz; Robert J McGranaghan; Richard Lichtenstein; Angela G Reyes; Jaye Clement; Akosua Burris Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-09-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Theresa S Betancourt; Lauren C Ng; Catherine M Kirk; Robert T Brennan; William R Beardslee; Sara Stulac; Christine Mushashi; Estella Nduwimana; Sylvere Mukunzi; Beatha Nyirandagijimana; Godfrey Kalisa; Cyamatare F Rwabukwisi; Vincent Sezibera Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Lotta Hamari; Jenni Konttila; Marko Merikukka; Anna-Maria Tuomikoski; Petra Kouvonen; Marjo Kurki Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2021-03-26