Consistent evidence documents the negative impacts of family separation on refugee mental health and concerns for the welfare of distant family members and desire to reunite with family members as priorities for refugees postmigration. Less is known about refugees' emic perspectives on their experiences of family separation. Using mixed methods data from a community-based mental health intervention study, we found that family separation was a major source of distress for refugees and that it was experienced in a range of ways: as fear for family still in harm's way, as a feeling of helplessness, as cultural disruption, as the greatest source of distress since resettlement, and contributing to mixed emotions around resettlement. In addition to these qualitative findings, we used quantitative data to test the relative contribution of family separation to refugees' depression/anxiety symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and psychological quality of life. Separation from a family member was significantly related to all 3 measures of mental health, and it explained significant additional variance in all 3 measures even after accounting for participants' overall level of trauma exposure. Relative to 26 other types of trauma exposure, family separation was 1 of only 2 traumatic experiences that explained additional variance in all 3 measures of mental health. Given the current global refugee crisis and the need for policies to address this large and growing issue, this research highlights the importance of considering the ways in which family separation impacts refugee mental health and policies and practices that could help ameliorate this ongoing stressor. (PsycINFO Database Record

There is an urgent need to eliminate mental health disparities experienced by American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). Service providers and researchers often address these disparities by focusing on low rates of participation in Western mental health services. In part, this reflects limited understandings of the sociopolitical and historical context of AI/AN mental health problems. Furthermore, this emphasis fails to recognize the importance of emic understandings of locally resonant coping strategies, healing, and treatment. In this article, we describe (a) a study designed to address these gaps, (b) findings related to the importance of land and place, and (c) a community–university collaboration to translate these findings into meaningful change within one Diné community. Connections to the land were an important cultural strength on which to build efforts to promote mental health. Thus, effective treatment might involve more in-depth understanding of cultural processes through which healing occurs and well-being is maintained.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a long-standing and important design for conducting rigorous tests of the effectiveness of health interventions. However, many questions have been raised about the external validity of RCTs, their utility in explicating mechanisms of intervention and participants’ intervention experiences, and their feasibility and acceptability. In the current mixed-methods study, academic and community partners developed and implemented an RCT to test the effectiveness of a collaboratively developed community-based advocacy, learning, and social support intervention. The goals of the intervention were to address social determinants of health and build trust and connections with other mental health services in order to reduce mental health disparities among Afghan, Great Lakes Region African, and Iraqi refugee adults and to engage and retain refugees in trauma-focused treatment, if needed. Two cohorts completed the intervention between 2013 and 2015. Ninety-three adult refugees were randomly assigned to intervention or control group and completed four research interviews (pre-, mid-, and postintervention, and follow-up). Several challenges to conducting a community-based RCT emerged, including issues related to interviewer intervention to assist participants in the control group, diffusion of intervention resources throughout the small refugee communities, and staff and community concerns about the RCT design and what evidence is meaningful to demonstrate intervention effectiveness. These findings highlight important epistemological, methodological, and ethical challenges that should be considered when conducting community-based RCTs and interpreting results from them. In addition, several innovations were developed to address these challenges, which may be useful for other community–academic partnerships engaged in RCTs.