METHODS: A systematic process was followed in formulating the therapy and devising a treatment manual consistent with the principles of the Adaptation and Development After Persecution and Trauma (ADAPT) model. The process of development and refinement was based on qualitative research amongst 70 refugees (ten from West Papua and 60 Rohingya from Myanmar). The therapeutic process was then piloted by trained interventionists amongst a purposively selected sample of 20 Rohingya refugees in Malaysia.
RESULTS: The final formulation of IAT represented an integration of the principles of the ADAPT model and evidence-based techniques of modern therapies in the field, including a transdiagnostic approach and the selective use of cognitive behavioural treatment elements such as problem-solving and emotional regulation techniques. The steps outlined in refining the manual are outlined in relation to work amongst West Papuan refugees, and the process of cultural and contextual modifications described during early piloting with Rohingya refugees in Malaysia.
CONCLUSIONS: IAT integrates universal principles of the ADAPT model with the particularities of the culture, history of conflict and living context of each refugee community; this synthesis of knowledge forms the basis for participants gaining insights into their personal patterns of psychosocial adaptation to the refugee experience. Participants then apply evidence-based techniques to improve their capacity to adapt to the serial psychosocial changes they have encountered in their lives as refugees. The overarching goal of IAT is to provide refugees with a coherent framework that assists in making sense of their experiences and their emotional and interpersonal reactions to the challenges they confront within the family and community context. As such, the principles of a general model (ADAPT) are used as a springboard for making concrete, manageable and meaningful life changes at the individual level, a potentially novel approach for psychosocial interventions in the field.
METHODS: A crossover study was conducted among Year 1 and Year 2 pharmacy students. Students were invited to participate voluntarily for one OB and one CB online formative test in a chemistry module in each year. Evaluation of their learning approach and perception of the OB and CB systems of examination was conducted using Deep Information Processing (DIP) questionnaire and Student Perception questionnaire respectively. The mean performance scores of OB and CB examinations were compared.
RESULTS: Analysis of DIP scores showed that there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the learning approach adopted for the two different examination systems. However, the mean score obtained in the OB examination was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than those obtained in the CB examination. Preference was given by a majority of students for the OB examination, possibly because it was associated with lower anxiety levels, less requirement of memorization, and more problem solving.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in deep learning approach of students, whether the format is of the OB or CB type examinations. However, the performance of students was significantly better in OB examination than CB. Hence, using OB examination along with CB examination will be useful for student learning and help them adapt to growing and changing knowledge in pharmacy education and practice.