The mental health of minors exposed to war and organized violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lately, there has been a call to develop and assess efficacious mental health interventions for minors who have witnessed organized violence.This review outlines what is currently known about targeted and general school-based interventions for children and adolescents in war-exposed countries.Seven empirical outcome studies were identified from a PubMed and PsychINFO search; four targeted and three general programs.Despite the paucity of published evidence, some promising findings were noted.School-based interventions implemented by locally trained paraprofessionals in organized violence settings appear to be a feasible and low-cost sustainable alternative to individualized therapy for distressed children in low-and middle-income countries.However, the reported outcomes for treatment effectiveness were mixed and suggest that school-based group crisis interventions for traumatized war exposed minors may not be sufficient to reduce mental distress and may sometimes even increase it.Several limitations in the published literature were observed.Although studies reported changes in symptoms associated with interventions, most did not report on the degree of functional impairment.Further, there may be a need to develop interventions targeting other dimensions of organized violence than post-traumatic distress, for example, depression and maladaptive grief.At this point in time it is difficult to compare targeted versus general interventions.There may be risks associated with screening minors, and studies should weigh the cost-benefit of targeted versus broader treatment approaches.Future research should aim to determine which therapeutic ingredients, which could be professional-specific, such as School-based intervention 9 manualized cognitive-behavioural therapy, culture-specific, or a combination, significantly contribute to positive outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".