4.4 Article

Training peers to treat Ebola centre workers with anxiety and depression in Sierra Leone

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 156-165

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0020764017752021

关键词

Ebola; psychological intervention; Sierra Leone; anxiety; depression; CBT

资金

  1. UK Public Health Rapid Support Team - UK Government
  2. UK Department for International Development
  3. Maudsley Charity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Following the 2014 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa, the UK Department for International Development funded South London and Maudsley National Health Service (NHS) to develop a psychological intervention that ex-Ebola Treatment Centre (ETC) staff could be trained to deliver to their peers to improve mental health in Sierra Leone. Aim: The two key aims were to assess the feasibility of training a national team to deliver a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based group intervention, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall intervention within this population. Methods: UK clinicians travelled to Sierra Leone to train a small team of ex-ETC staff in a three-phased CBT-based intervention. Standardised clinical measures, as well as bespoke measures, were applied with participants through the intervention to assess changes in mental health symptomology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. Results: The results found improvements across all factors of mental health in the bespoke measure from phase 1 to phase 3. Additionally, the majority of standardised clinical measures showed improvements between phase 2 and the start of phase 3, and pre- and post-phase 3. Conclusion: Overall, the findings suggest that it is possible to train staff from ETCs to deliver effective CBT interventions to peers. The implications of these results are discussed, including suggestions for future research and clinical intervention implementation within this population. The limitations of this research are also addressed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据