↓ Skip to main content

A two-phase approach for the identification of refugees with priority need for mental health care in Lebanon: a validation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A two-phase approach for the identification of refugees with priority need for mental health care in Lebanon: a validation study
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1154-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Augusto E. Llosa, Mark Van Ommeren, Kavitha Kolappa, Zeina Ghantous, Renato Souza, Pierre Bastin, Andrej Slavuckij, Rebecca F. Grais

Abstract

Time and resource efficient mental disorder screening mechanisms are not available to identify the growing number of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons in priority need for mental health care. The aim of this study was to identify efficient screening instruments and mechanisms for the detection of moderate and severe mental disorders in a refugee setting. Lay interviewers applied a screening algorithm to detect individuals with severe distress or mental disorders in randomly selected households in a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon. The method included household informant and individual level interviews using a Vignettes of Local Terms and Concepts for mental disorders (VOLTAC), individual and household informant portions of the field-test version of the WHO-UNHCR Assessment Schedule of Serious Symptoms in Humanitarian Settings (WASSS) and the WHO Self Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20). A subset of participants were then reappraised utilizing the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II, and the Global Assessment of Functioning. The study constitutes a secondary analysis of interview data from 283 randomly selected households (n = 748 adult residents) who participated in a mental health disorders prevalence study in 2010. The 5-item household informant portion of WASSS was the most efficient instrument among those tested. It detected adults with severe mental disorders with 95% sensitivity and 71% specificity (Area Under Curve (AUC) = 0.85) and adults with moderate or severe mental disorder with 85.1% sensitivity and 74.8% specificity (AUC = 0.82). The complete screening algorithm demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 58% specificity. Our results suggest that a two phase, screen-confirm approach is likely a useful strategy to detect incapacitating mental disorders in humanitarian contexts where mental health specialists are scarce, and that in the context of a multi-step screen confirm mechanism, the household informant portion of field-test version of the WASSS may be an efficient screening tool to identify adults in greatest need for mental health care in humanitarian settings.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 14%
Social Sciences 16 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 40 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,510,637
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,507
of 4,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,976
of 418,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#50
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.