Displacement exerts an ongoing negative impact on people’s mental health. The majority of displaced populations are hosted in the global south, yet there is a paucity of evidence synthesis on the implementation of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) programmes in those contexts. We undertook a systematic review of factors influencing the delivery and receipt of MHPSS programmes for displaced populations in low- and middle-income countries to address this gap. A comprehensive search of 12 bibliographic databases, 25 websites and citation checking were undertaken. Studies published in English from 2013 onwards were included if they contained evidence on the perspectives of adults or children who had engaged in, or programmes providers involved in delivering, MHPSS programmes. Fifteen studies were critically appraised and synthesised. Studies considered programme safety as a proxy for acceptability. Other acceptability themes included stigma, culture and gender. Barriers to the accessibility of MHPSS programmes included language, lack of literacy of programme recipients and location of services. To enhance success, future delivery of MHPSS programmes should address gender and cultural norms to limit mental health stigma. Attention should also be given to designing flexible programmes that take into consideration location and language barriers to ensure they maximise accessibility.

It is crucial to optimize global mental health research to address the high burden of mental health challenges and mental illness for individuals and societies. Data sharing and reuse have demonstrated value for advancing science and accelerating knowledge development. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Guiding Principles for scientific data provide a framework to improve the transparency, efficiency, and impact of research. In this review, we describe ethical and equity considerations in data sharing and reuse, delineate the FAIR principles as they apply to mental health research, and consider the current state of FAIR data practices in global mental health research, identifying challenges and opportunities. We describe noteworthy examples of collaborative efforts, often across disciplinary and national boundaries, to improve Findability and Accessibility of global mental health data, as well as efforts to create integrated data resources and tools that improve Interoperability and Reusability. Based on this review, we suggest a vision for the future of FAIR global mental health research and suggest practical steps for researchers with regard to study planning, data preservation and indexing, machine-actionable metadata, data reuse to advance science and improve equity, metrics and recognition.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential feasibility and utility of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EPDs) in low income country (LIC) contexts. EDPs are implemented in high and middle income countries and thought to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of decisions informed by health technology assessment (HTA). Together these would ultimately improve the legitimacy of any decision making process. We argue—based on our previous work and in light of the priority setting literature—that EDPs are relevant and feasible within LICs. The extreme lack of resources necessitates making tough decisions which may mean depriving populations of potentially valuable health technologies. It is critical that the decisions and the decision making bodies are perceived as fair and legitimate by the people that are most affected by the decisions. EDPs are well aligned with the political infrastructure in some LICs, which encourages public participation in decision making. Furthermore, many countries are committed to evidence-informed decision making. However, the application of EDPs may be hampered by the limited availability of evidence of good quality, lack of interest in transparency and accountability (in some LICs), limited capacity to conduct HTA, as well as limited time and financial resources to invest in a deliberative process. While EDPs would potentially benefit many LICs, mitigating the identified potential barriers would strengthen their applicability. We believe that implementation studies in LICs, documenting the contextualized enablers and barriers will facilitate the development of context specific improvement strategies for EDPs.