The terror spread by the war disrupts lives and severs families, leaving individuals and communities devastated. People are left to fend for themselves on multiple levels, especially psychologically. It is well documented that war adversely affects non-combatant civilians, both physically and psychologically. However, how the war puts civilians’ lives in a limbo is an under-researched area. This paper focuses on three aspects: (1) how the mental health and well-being of Ukrainian civilians, asylum seekers, and refugees are affected by the war caused limbo; (2) what factors affect this process of being stuck in the limbo of war; and (3) how psychologists and helpers in the war-ridden and host countries can provide meaningful support. Based on the authors’ own practical work with Ukrainian civilians, refugees, and professional helpers during the war, this paper provides an overview of multi-level factors that impact human psyches in a war, and possible ways to help those who are living in the war limbo. In this research and experiential learning-based review, we offer some helpful strategies, action plans, and resources for the helpers including psychologists, counselors, volunteers, and relief workers. We emphasize that the effects of war are neither linear nor equal for all civilians and refugees. Some will recover and return to a routine life while others will experience panic attacks, trauma, depression, and even PTSD, which can also surface much later and can prolong over the years. Hence, we provide experience-based ways of dealing with short-term and prolonged trauma of living with war and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Mental health professionals and other helpers in Ukraine and in host countries can use these helping strategies and resources to provide effective support for Ukrainians and for war refugees in general.

Although jihadist threats are regarded as foreign, most Islamist terror attacks in Europe and the United States have been orchestrated by Muslims born and raised in Western societies. In the present research, we explored a link between perceived deprivation of Western Muslims and endorsement of extremism. We suggest that Western-born Muslims are particularly vulnerable to the impact of perceived relative deprivation because comparisons with majority groups’ peers are more salient for them than for individuals born elsewhere. Thus, we hypothesized that Western-born, compared with foreign-born, Muslims would score higher on four predictors of extremism (e.g., violent intentions), and group-based deprivation would explain these differences. Studies 1 to 6 (Ns = 59, 232, 259, 243, 104, and 366, respectively) confirmed that Western-born Muslims scored higher on all examined predictors of extremism. Mediation and meta-analysis showed that group-based relative deprivation accounted for these differences. Study 7 (N = 60) showed that these findings are not generalizable to non-Muslims.

Background: Climate change is an urgent global threat, with women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) disproportionately facing adverse health outcomes. Gendered roles, combined with socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental factors, exacerbate women’s vulnerabilities, increasing the burden of mental health issues, water insecurity, sanitation challenges, and caregiving responsibilities. Objectives: This review seeks to systematically examine the intersection between climate change and gendered health vulnerabilities, with a particular focus on women. It explores how climate change intensifies gender-specific risks and identifies pathways for integrating gender-responsive policies to mitigate both short- and long-term health impacts. Design: Following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework, this systematic review mapped key concepts and evidence from studies conducted between January 2011 and January 2024. The review focuses on identifying the multifaceted health impacts of climate change on women, particularly in LMICs and marginalized communities. Data Sources and Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Web of Science and Scopus databases using key terms and Medical Subject Headings related to climate change, women’s health, gender inequality, mental health, water security, sanitation, and caregiving burdens. Studies were screened and selected based on relevance to the predefined criteria, with data extracted on study design, key findings, and limitations. Results: From 2163 citations screened, 61 studies were included in the final analysis. The review highlights that climate change disproportionately affects women, exacerbating pre-existing gender inequalities. Specific impacts include heightened mental health challenges, adverse maternal and newborn health outcomes, increased water insecurity, and an intensified caregiving burden. Women in LMICs are particularly vulnerable due to reduced access to resources, healthcare, and decision-making platforms, further limiting their adaptive capacities. Conclusion: The findings underscore the critical need for gender-responsive climate policies that address both immediate health impacts and the broader socioeconomic and environmental determinants affecting women. Effective climate adaptation strategies must integrate gender perspectives, ensuring that women’s specific vulnerabilities are accounted for in policy frameworks. This review advocates for the empowerment of women through increased access to resources and decision-making, thus enhancing their resilience and adaptive capacity in the face of climate change.