↓ Skip to main content

Monitoring and evaluation of mental health and psychosocial support programs in humanitarian settings: a scoping review of terminology and focus

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Monitoring and evaluation of mental health and psychosocial support programs in humanitarian settings: a scoping review of terminology and focus
Published in
Conflict and Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13031-018-0146-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jura L. Augustinavicius, M. Claire Greene, Daniel P. Lakin, Wietse A. Tol

Abstract

Monitoring and evaluation of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) programs is critical to facilitating learning and providing accountability to stakeholders. As part of an inter-agency effort to develop recommendations on MHPSS monitoring and evaluation, this scoping review aimed to identify the terminology and focus of monitoring and evaluation frameworks in this field. We collected program documents (logical frameworks (logframes) and theories of change) from members of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group on MHPSS, and systematically searched the peer-reviewed literature across five databases. We included program documents and academic articles that reported on monitoring and evaluation of MHPSS in low- and middle-income countries describing original data. Inclusion and data extraction were conducted in parallel by independent reviewers. Thematic analysis was used to identify common language in the description of practices and the focus of each monitoring and evaluation framework. Logframe outcomes were mapped to MHPSS activity categories. We identified 38 program documents and 89 peer-reviewed articles, describing monitoring and evaluation of a wide range of MHPSS activities. In both program documents and peer-reviewed literature there was a lack of specificity and overlap in language used for goals and outcomes. Well-validated, reliable instruments were reported in the academic literature, but rarely used in monitoring and evaluation practices. We identified six themes in the terminology used to describe goals and outcomes. Logframe outcomes were more commonly mapped to generic program implementation activities (e.g. "capacity building") and those related to family and community support, while outcomes from academic articles were most frequently mapped to specialized psychological treatments. Inconsistencies between the language used in research and practice and discrepancies in measurement have broader implications for monitoring and evaluation in MHPSS programs in humanitarian settings within low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review of the terminology commonly used to describe monitoring and evaluation practices and their focus within MHPSS programming highlights areas of importance for the development of a more standardized approach to monitoring and evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 32 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 17%
Social Sciences 17 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 35 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,133,776
of 24,742,536 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#61
of 631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,682
of 337,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,742,536 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 337,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.