Service User and Service Provider Perceptions of Enablers and Barriers for Refugee and Asylum-Seeking Women Accessing and Engaging with Perinatal Mental Health Care Services in the WHO European Region: A Scoping Review Protocol

There is a need to understand the specific perinatal mental health care needs of migrant subgroups who often have differing health care needs and specific barriers to accessing and engaging with health care services. It is important to have evidence about the WHO European context given the rising numbers of refugees and asylum seekers in the region. The aim of this scoping review is to map the factors that enable and prevent access and engagement of refugee and asylum-seeking women with perinatal mental health care services in the WHO European Region, from the perspectives of service providers and service users. The database search will include PsycINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL complete, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, and Maternity and Infant Care (OVID). Search results will be exported to an online tool that provides a platform to help manage the review process, including title, abstract, and full-text screening and voting by reviewers independently. Data concerning access and engagement with health care services will be mapped on to the candidacy framework. Systematically searching evidence within the WHO European region and examining this evidence through the candidacy lens will help develop a more comprehensive and a deeper conceptual understanding of the barriers and levers of access and engagement with perinatal mental health care services, whilst identifying gaps in existing evidence. Exploring factors that influence access and engagement for refugee and asylum-seeking women from the perspective of key stakeholders in the service provision and/or service utilisation of perinatal mental health care services will add a more comprehensive understanding of the recursive relationship between service provision and use.

Delivering collaborative mental health care within supportive housing: implementation evaluation of a community-hospital partnership

Background Approaches to address unmet mental health care needs in supportive housing settings are needed. Collaborative approaches to delivering psychiatric care have robust evidence in multiple settings, however such approaches have not been adequately studied in housing settings. This study evaluates the implementation of a shifted outpatient collaborative care initiative in which a psychiatrist was added to existing housing, community mental health, and primary care supports in a women-centered supportive housing complex in Toronto, Canada. Methods The initiative was designed and implemented by stakeholders from an academic hospital and from community housing and mental health agencies. Program activities comprised multidisciplinary support for tenants (e.g. multidisciplinary care teams, case conferences), tenant engagement (psychoeducation sessions), and staff capacity-building (e.g. formal trainings, informal ad hoc questions). This mixed methods implementation evaluation sought to understand (1) program activity delivery including satisfaction with these activities, (2) consistency with team-based tenant-centered care and with pre-specified shared lenses (trauma-informed, culturally safe, harm reduction), and (3) facilitators and barriers to implementation over a one-year period. Quantitative data included reporting of program activity delivery (weekly and monthly), staff surveys, and tenant surveys (post-group surveys following tenant psychoeducation groups and an all-tenant survey). Qualitative data included focus groups with staff and stakeholders, program documents, and free-text survey responses. Results All three program activity domains (multidisciplinary supports, tenant engagement, staff capacity-building) were successfully implemented. Main program activities were multidisciplinary case conferences, direct psychiatric consultation, tenant psychoeducation sessions, formal staff training, and informal staff support. Psychoeducation for tenants and informal/formal staff support were particularly valued. Most activities were team-based. Of the shared lenses, trauma-informed care was the most consistently implemented. Facilitators to implementation were shared lenses, psychiatrist characteristics, shared time/space, balance between structure and flexibility, building trust, logistical support, and the embedded evaluation. Barriers were that the initial model was driven by leadership, confusion in initial processes, different workflows across organizations, and staff turnover; where possible, iterative changes were implemented to address barriers. Conclusions This evaluation highlights the process of successfully implementing a shifted outpatient collaborative mental health care initiative in supportive housing. Further work is warranted to evaluate whether collaborative care adaptations in supportive housing settings lead to improvements in tenant- and program-level outcomes.