METHODS: A 2-year cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the prevalence and associated risk factors for infections among urban refugees in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. A total of 418 faecal samples were collected and examined by microscopy.
RESULTS: Faecal screening revealed moderate levels (32.3%) of infections in the community. Three nematode (Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura and hookworm) and three protozoan species (Entamoeba, Giardia and Cryptosporidium) were recorded, with the highest prevalence being A. lumbricoides (20.6%) followed by T. trichiura (10.3%), while other infections were <5%. Statistical analysis found that young males with less education were more likely to be infected with helminths. Additionally, living near waste disposal sites, the presence of stray animals, eating with bare hands, bare footedness, poor handwashing practices and no anthelmintic treatment constituted significant risk factors for helminth infections. Protozoan infections were linked to drinking tap water or from water dispensers and poor handwashing practices.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize the importance of health education in addition to introduction of biannual anthelmintic treatment to promote community health and well-being.
Methods: Participants learned the symptoms of mental health issues among children and adolescents in the context of post-trauma, provision of early intervention, and channel for professional supports. They also answered a packet of measurements of mental health literacy before and after the programme.
Results: The paired sample t-test showed that participants reported higher willingness to contact with people having mental health problems (t = 2.787, P = 0.008, Cohen's d = 0.394), less stereotypes toward mental illness (t = 4.603, P < 0.001, d = 0.651) and a better understanding of self-help strategies (t = 2.16, P = .036, d = 0.322) than baseline.
Conclusion: The results of this study offered preliminary empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the programme as a promising channel for alleviating mental health issues among refugees.
AIM: The study aimed to examine resilience and its association with religiosity and religious coping among adolescent refugees living in Malaysia.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted in five community-based learning centres in Malaysia from July 2019 till December 2019. A total of 152 refugees, aged 13 to 19-years-old, were recruited. The study gauged resilience using the 14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14), the Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) for religiosity and the Brief Religious Coping Scale (Brief RCOPE) for religious coping.
RESULTS: The majority of adolescent refugees portrayed moderate levels of resilience (43.5%). The study highlighted the interconnectedness between resilience and intrinsic religiosity (IR) (p
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study, for which we conveniently recruited 100 adult Rohingyas, 50 from each country; the majority was males. Rohingyas in Bangladesh fled Myanmar's Rakhine State following a major military crackdown in 2017, whereas Rohingyas in Malaysia fled Rakhine gradually over the last three decades because of recurrent violence and military operations. We assessed trauma (cumulative trauma, direct trauma, and indirect trauma), PTSD, depression, generalized anxiety, and everyday functioning of the participants using traumatic event questionnaire, PTSD-8, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and WHODAS-2.0.
RESULTS: The Bangladeshi cohort experienced more types of traumatic events (i.e., cumulative trauma) than did the Malaysian cohort (d = 0.58). Although the two cohorts did not differ in terms of indirect exposure to traumatic incidents (i.e., indirect trauma), the Malaysian cohort had direct exposure to traumatic events (i.e., direct trauma) more frequently than did the Bangladeshi cohort (d = 1.22). The Bangladeshi cohort showed higher PTSD (d = 1.67), depression (d = 0.81), generalized anxiety (d = 1.49), and functional impairment (d = 2.51) than those in Malaysia. Hierarchical linear regression analyses showed that after controlling for demographic variables, both direct and indirect trauma significantly predicted PTSD, depression, and functional impairment among Rohingyas in Bangladesh, with direct trauma being the stronger predictor. However, similar analyses showed that only indirect trauma predicted PTSD among Rohingyas in Malaysia, while all other effects were nonsignificant. The results also showed that the predictive relationship between direct trauma and PTSD was different across the two countries. With the same level of direct trauma, a participant from Malaysia would score 0.256 points lower in PTSD than a participant from Bangladesh.
CONCLUSION: The recently experienced direct and indirect trauma have impaired mental health and everyday functioning among the Bangladeshi cohort. However, only indirect trauma was active to cause PTSD in the Malaysian cohort as direct trauma was weakening due to the time elapsed since migration. We discuss the results in the context of the current theories of trauma and mental health and suggest therapeutic interventions for the refugee population.
METHODS: Parallel epidemiological studies were conducted in areas where the three groups were concentrated in and around Malaysia (response rates: 80-83%).
RESULTS: TE exposure, PMLDs and ASI were significantly associated with CMD prevalence in each group but the Rohingya recorded the highest exposure to all three of these former indices relative to Chin and Kachin (TE: mean = 11.1 v. 8.2 v. 11; PMLD: mean = 13.5 v. 7.4 v. 8.7; ASI: mean = 128.9 v. 32.1 v. 35.5). Multiple logistic regression analyses based on the pooled sample (n = 2058) controlling for gender and age, found that ethnic group membership, premigration TEs (16 or more TEs: OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39-2.88; p < 0.001), PMLDs (10-15 PMLDs: OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 3.17-5.54; 16 or more PMLDs: OR, 7.23; 95% CI, 5.24-9.98; p < 0.001) and ASI score (ASI score 100 or greater: OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.46-3.30; p < 0.001) contributed to CMD.
CONCLUSIONS: Factors specific to each ethnic group and differences in the quantum of exposure to TEs, PMLDs and psychosocial disruptions appeared to account in large part for differences in prevalence rates of CMDs observed across these three groups.
METHOD: We conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders in Malaysia (N = 44) and Thailand (N = 50), alongside policy document review in both countries. Data were analysed thematically. Results informed development of Systems Thinking diagrams hypothesizing potential intervention points to improve cultural competency, namely via addressing language barriers.
RESULTS: Language ability was a core tenet of cultural competency as described by participants in both countries. Malay was perceived to be an easy language that migrants could learn quickly, with perceived proficiency differing by source country and length of stay in Malaysia. Language barriers were a source of frustration for both migrants and health workers, which compounded communication of complex conditions including mental health as well as obtaining informed consent from migrant patients. Health workers in Malaysia used strategies including google translate and hand gestures to communicate, while migrant patients were encouraged to bring friends to act as informal interpreters during consultations. Current health services are not migrant friendly, which deters use. Concerns around overuse of services by non-citizens among the domestic population may partly explain the lack of policy support for cultural competency in Malaysia. Service provision for migrants in Thailand was more culturally sensitive as formal interpreters, known as Migrant Health Workers (MHW), could be hired in public facilities, as well as Migrant Health Volunteers (MHV) who provide basic health education in communities.
CONCLUSION: Perceptions of overuse by migrants in a health system acts as a barrier against system or institutional level improvements for cultural competency, in an already stretched health system. At the micro-level, language interventions with migrant workers appear to be the most feasible leverage point but raises the question of who should bear responsibility for cost and provision-employers, the government, or migrants themselves.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted 30 semistructured interviews with health policy-makers, health service providers, and other experts working in the United Nations (n = 6), ministries and public health (n = 5), international (n = 9) and national civil society (n = 7), and academia (n = 3) based in Indonesia (n = 6), Malaysia (n = 10), Myanmar (n = 6), and Thailand (n = 8). Data were analysed thematically using deductive and inductive coding. Interviewees described the cumulative nature of health risks at each migratory phase. Perceived barriers to addressing migrants' cumulative health needs were primarily financial, juridico-political, and sociocultural, whereas key facilitators were many health workers' humanitarian stance and positive national commitment to pursuing universal health coverage (UHC). Across all countries, financial constraints were identified as the main challenges in addressing the comprehensive health needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Participants recommended regional and multisectoral approaches led by national governments, recognising refugee and asylum-seeker contributions, and promoting inclusion and livelihoods. Main study limitations included that we were not able to include migrant voices or those professionals not already interested in migrants.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is one of the first qualitative studies to investigate the health concerns and barriers to access among migrants experiencing forced displacement, particularly refugees and asylum seekers, in Southeast Asia. Findings provide practical new insights with implications for informing policy and practice. Overall, sociopolitical inclusion of forcibly displaced populations remains difficult in these four countries despite their significant contributions to host-country economies.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a single-blind RCT (October 2017 -May 2019) with Chin (39.3%), Kachin (15.7%), and Rohingya (45%) refugees living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The trial included 170 participants receiving six 45-minute weekly sessions of IAT (97.6% retention, 4 lost to follow-up) and 161 receiving a multicomponent CBT also involving six 45-minute weekly sessions (96.8% retention, 5 lost to follow-up). Participants (mean age: 30.8 years, SD = 9.6) had experienced and/or witnessed an average 10.1 types (SD = 5.9, range = 1-27) of traumatic events. We applied a single-blind design in which independent assessors of pre- and posttreatment indices were masked in relation to participants' treatment allocation status. Primary outcomes were symptom scores of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD (CPTSD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the 5 scales of the Adaptive Stress Index (ASI), and a measure of resilience (the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [CDRS]). Compared to CBT, an intention-to-treat analysis (n = 331) at 6-week posttreatment follow-up demonstrated greater reductions in the IAT arm for all common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms and ASI domains except for ASI-3 (injustice), as well as increases in the resilience scores. Adjusted average treatment effects assessing the differences in posttreatment scores between IAT and CBT (with baseline scores as covariates) were -0.08 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.02, p = 0.012) for PTSD, -0.07 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.01) for CPTSD, -0.07 for MDD (95% CI: -0.13 to -0.01, p = 0.025), 0.16 for CDRS (95% CI: 0.06-0.026, p ≤ 0.001), -0.12 (95% CI: -0.20 to -0.03, p ≤ 0.001) for ASI-1 (safety/security), -0.10 for ASI-2 (traumatic losses; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02, p = 0.02), -0.03 for ASI-3 (injustice; (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.06, p = 0.513), -0.12 for ASI-4 (role/identity disruptions; 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.04, p ≤ 0.001), and -0.18 for ASI-5 (existential meaning; 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.05, p ≤ 0.001). Compared to CBT, the IAT group had larger effect sizes for all indices (except for resilience) including PTSD (IAT, d = 0.93 versus CBT, d = 0.87), CPTSD (d = 1.27 versus d = 1.02), MDD (d = 1.4 versus d = 1.11), ASI-1 (d = 1.1 versus d = 0.85), ASI-2 (d = 0.81 versus d = 0.66), ASI-3 (d = 0.49 versus d = 0.42), ASI-4 (d = 0.86 versus d = 0.67), and ASI-5 (d = 0.72 versus d = 0.53). No adverse events were recorded for either therapy. Limitations include a possible allegiance effect (the authors inadvertently conveying disproportionate enthusiasm for IAT in training and supervision), cross-over effects (counsellors applying elements of one therapy in delivering the other), and the brief period of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CBT, IAT showed superiority in improving mental health symptoms and adaptative stress from baseline to 6-week posttreatment. The differences in scores between IAT and CBT were modest and future studies conducted by independent research teams need to confirm the findings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered under Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (http://www.anzctr.org.au/). The trial registration number is: ACTRN12617001452381.