Specialised mental health (MH) care providers are often absent or scarcely available in low resource and humanitarian settings (LRHS), making MH training and supervision for general health care workers (using task-sharing approaches) essential to scaling up services and reducing the treatment gap for severe and common MH conditions. Yet, the diversity of settings, population types, and professional skills in crisis contexts complicate these efforts. A standardised, field tested instrument for clinical supervision would be a significant step towards attaining quality standards in MH care worldwide.

A competency-based clinical supervision tool was designed by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) for use in LRHS. A systematic literature review informed its design and assured its focus on key clinical competencies. An initial pool of behavioural indicators was identified through a rational theoretical scale construction approach, tested through waves of simulation and reviewed by 12 MH supervisors in seven projects where MSF provides care for severe and common MH conditions.

Qualitative analysis yielded two sets of competency grids based on a supervisee's professional background: one for ‘psychological/counselling’ and another for ‘psychiatric/mhGAP’ practitioners. Each grid features 22–26 competencies, plus optional items for specific interventions. While the structure and content were assessed as logical by supervisors, there were concerns regarding the adequacy of the tool to field reality.

Humanitarian settings have specific needs that require careful consideration when developing capacity-building strategies. Clinical supervision of key competencies through a standardised instrument represents an important step towards ensuring progress of clinical skills among MH practitioners.

MHPSS is increasingly seen as a critical component to effective and responsible humanitarian programming. This review examines the extent to which MHPSS research generated since 2010 has contributed to the public health evidence base and how this has influenced and impacted programming and policy in humanitarian settings.

This mixed-method study included a scoping literature review (n = 50) and a consultation process with qualitative key informant interviews (n = 19) and online survey responses (n = 52) to identify the facilitating and inhibiting factors for the two areas of inquiry and to understand the broader context in which knowledge is generated and taken up. The interviews were thematically analysed and the survey responses were descriptively analysed.

The review identified a rapidly growing evidence base that has evaluated a range of MHPSS interventions. However, few studies examined long-term impacts of interventions, there was limited direct evidence on outcomes for children and adolescents and whole family approaches, and there were minimal replications of the same approach that could test efficacy across settings and population groups. A general shift was identified in the consultation process away from a focus on disorder towards the more positive aspects of wellbeing. However, there remained a mismatch in many studies included in the literature review, whereby the interventions were broad, community-based but the outcome measures used still focused on changes in symptoms of mental disorders.

The evidence base for MHPSS has grown significantly over the last 10 years. However, several knowledge gaps remain, as does the divide between research and practice. Moving forward, MHPSS intervention research needs to be more responsive to the needs on the ground.

To discuss the potential usefulness of a public health approach for ‘mental health and psychosocial support’ (MHPSS) interventions in humanitarian settings.

Building on public mental health terminology in accordance with recent literature on this topic and considering existing international consensus guidelines on MHPSS interventions in humanitarian settings, this paper reflects on the relevance of the language of promotion and prevention for supporting the rationale, design and evaluation of interventions, with a particular focus on populations affected by disasters and conflicts in low- and middle-income countries.

A public mental health approach and associated terminology can form a useful framework in the design and evaluation of MHPSS interventions, and may contribute to reducing a divisive split between ‘mental health’ and ‘psychosocial’ practice in the humanitarian field. Many of the most commonly implemented MHPSS interventions in humanitarian settings can be described in terms of promotion and prevention terminology.

The use of a common terminology across health, protection, education, nutrition and other relevant sectors providing humanitarian interventions has the potential to allow for integration of MHPSS activities in one overall framework, with diverse humanitarian practitioners working to achieve a common goal.