Mental Health Promotion in Victims of Colombian Armed conflict: a Scoping Review

ObjectiveTo explore mental health promotion interventions for victims of Colombian armed conflict. DesignScoping review. MethodsSearches were conducted using indexed and free terms regarding mental health promotion interventions for victims of Colombian armed conflict in different databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scielo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LiLACS, Google Scholar, and PsycArticles. We included primary and secondary research sources, including clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, qualitative research, online journals, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews, as well as government reports and articles about implementing mental health promotion strategies for victims of Colombian armed conflict. ResultsOur search returned 317 identified articles through database exploration. Four more articles were included through literature research and another four records were included through gray literature and government reports. Retrieved citations were screened using Rayyan QCRI. A total of 259 records were left after duplicate removal. Members of the group then performed a paired-blind screening, which left us with 16 articles to be included in the analysis. Data analysis was conducted by authors in pairs using custom tools developed by the research team. After reviewing the articles, only six met the inclusion criteria established for this scoping review. Among these, two of the interventions addressed were randomized clinical trials that demonstrated effects on depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Additionally, one of these trials assessed impairments in functionality. ConclusionA total of six articles demonstrated the effectiveness of mental health promotion and primary prevention interventions in Colombian victims of armed conflict. However, only two of the studies were randomized clinical trials, and methodological limitations were evident, including loss in sample follow-up, challenges in comparing populations, and use of non-standardized scales across different studies. This hinders the possibility of a unified assessment of these interventions and highlights the need for bigger study samples and use of tools that facilitate access to programs and one-year follow-ups to enhance interventions government organizations employ to address these mental health needs.