Jocelyn Kelly

Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs. Methods and findings: We conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [−.47, −.11], p-value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [−0.07, −.34], p-value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [−0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples. Conclusions: Controlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during “lean”, pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health.

Background: Risks of gender-based violence (GBV) are exacerbated in humanitarian crises. GBV risk mitigation interventions aim to reduce exposure to GBV and ensure that humanitarian response actions and services themselves do not cause harm or increase the risk of violence. The 2015 IASC Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action (‘GBV Guidelines’) are a globally endorsed resource that provides comprehensive guidance for all humanitarian actors and sectors on GBV risk mitigation. While uptake of GBV risk mitigation approaches across multiple humanitarian sectors has occurred, there is limited understanding of how to monitor and evaluate GBV risk mitigation interventions.Methods: A multi-methods study was conducted in 2019 to identify promising practices for the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of GBV risk mitigation interventions in non-GBV sectors and to develop a set of illustrative case examples. The study included a comprehensive desk review of 145 articles, documents and resources from the published and grey literature, as well as 11 in-depth interviews and five focus group discussions with humanitarian practitioners. Using Dedoose software and a codebook developed a priori, qualitative data were transcribed and coded and a content analysis was conducted. Excerpts focusing on promising practices from the qualitative data and the desk review were analyzed together and grouped by thematic area. Similar promising practices were combined and consolidated to create a final list, and case examples were identified.Results: Current promising practices for M&E of GBV risk mitigation activities in the following categories are described: (1) Coordination and collaboration, (2) Designing M&E approaches and tools for GBV risk mitigation activities, (3) Contextualization, (4) Developing and selecting indicators, (5) Data collection, (6) Data analysis and use of findings, (7) Potential safety concerns for affected populations and staff, and (8) Staff capacity and engagement. These are supplemented with seven diverse case examples to illustrate application of the promising practices using real-world examples.Conclusion: This paper highlights current promising practices for M&E of GBV risk mitigation interventions in humanitarian response. Further application of these practices—alongside ongoing documentation of emerging approaches—will be critical to ensuring that GBV risk mitigation interventions are more rigorously tested with the aim of building the evidence base on the effectiveness of different GBV risk mitigation interventions within specific humanitarian sectors.

Available evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic and response measures may lead to increased risk of gender-based violence (GBV), including in humanitarian contexts. This study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of humanitarian practitioners related to GBV risk mitigation approaches during COVID-19 in order to refine current guidance and inform future materials. A global, online cross-sectional survey of humanitarian practitioners was conducted between November 2020 and April 2021. We calculated descriptive statistics and used Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests to compare knowledge, attitudes, and practices among GBV specialists and non-specialists. Of 170 respondents, 58% were female and 44% were GBV specialists. Almost all (95%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they have a role to play in GBV risk mitigation. Compared to GBV specialists, a higher proportion of non-specialists reported little to no knowledge on GBV risk mitigation global guidance (38% vs. 7%, p < 0.001) and on how to respond to a disclosure of GBV (18% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Respondents reported several barriers to integrating GBV risk mitigation into their work during COVID-19, including insufficient funding, capacity, knowledge, and guidance. Efforts to mainstream GBV risk mitigation actions should continue and intensify, leveraging the lessons and experiences generated thus far.

Objectives To systematically document measurement approaches used in the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence (GBV) risk mitigation activities, categorise the types of available literature produced by sector, identify existing tools and measures and identify knowledge gaps within the humanitarian sector. Design Systematic mapping and in-depth review. Data sources: Pubmed, Global Health, PsychInfo, ReliefWeb, OpenGrey (grey literature), Google Scholar, Web of Science (Social Science Index) Eligibility criteria: a structured search strategy was systematically applied to 17 databases as well as registers, websites and other resources to identify materials published between 1 January 2005 and 15 May 2019. Data extraction and synthesis: Those resources that met the inclusion criteria underwent a comprehensive full-text review. A detailed matrix was developed and key data from each resource were extracted to allow for the assessment of patterns in thematic areas. Results A total of 2108 documents were screened. Overall, 145 documents and 112 tools were reviewed, representing 10 different humanitarian sectors. While numerous resources exist, many lack sufficient information on how to monitor outputs or outcomes of GBV risk mitigation activities. There is also limited guidance on how to integrate the measurement of GBV risk mitigation into existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Those reports that aimed to measure GBV risk mitigation activities mostly employed qualitative methods and few measured the impact of a GBV risk mitigation with robust research designs. Conclusions Recent efforts to adapt humanitarian response to COVID-19 have highlighted new and existing challenges for GBV risk mitigation. There is a significant gap in the evidence base around the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation across all sectors. Understanding and strengthening measurement approaches in GBV risk mitigation remains a critical task for humanitarian response.

Both the fields of public health and that of human rights seek to improve human well-being, including through reducing and preventing all forms of violence, to help individuals attain the highest quality of life. In both fields, mathematical methods can help "visibilize" the hidden architecture of violence, bringing new methods to bear to understand the scope and nuance of how violence affects populations. An increasing number of studies have examined how residing in a conflict-affected place may impact one of the most pervasive forms of violence-intimate partner violence (IPV)-during and after conflict. This paper contributes to this effort by examining whether severe forms of IPV are associated with previous experience of political violence in one conflict-affected country: Liberia. Our findings indicate that living in a district with conflict fatalities increased the risk of IPV among women by roughly 60%. Additionally, living in a district with conflict fatalities increased the risk of a past-year injury from IPV by 50%. This analysis brings to light links between two of the most pervasive forms of violence-political violence and violence against women. The findings suggest that women residing in a district that is more highly affected by conflict, not only people experiencing direct trauma during conflict, may be at risk of increased violence long after peace is declared. These findings point to the need for targeted programs that address IPV postconflict.