Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings table ‐ Psychosocial intervention compared to control for promoting the mental health of people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises (adults).

Psychosocial intervention compared to control for promoting the mental health of people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises (adults)
Patient or population: promoting the mental health of people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises (adults) Setting: low‐ and middle‐income countries affected by humanitarian crises Intervention: psychosocial intervention Comparison: control
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with control	Risk with psychosocial intervention
Mental well‐being at study endpoint	‐	SMD 0.29 SD lower (0.44 lower to 0.14 lower)	‐	674 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b	Investigators measured mental well‐being using different instruments. In both cases, high numbers suggest greater mental well‐being. Psychosocial intervention may result in a reduction in mental well‐being at study endpoint. This is a small‐to‐moderate effect according to Cohen. As a rule of thumb, 0.2 standard deviations (SD) represents a small difference, 0.5 a moderate, and 0.8 a large.
Mental well‐being at follow‐up assessed with: Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale Scale from: 14 to 70 follow‐up: mean 12 weeks	The mean mental well‐being at follow‐up was 45.68	MD 0.44 lower (2.07 lower to 1.19 higher)	‐	441 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,c	The score range for the Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale is from 14 to 70, with higher scores indicating higher levels of mental well‐being.
Functioning at study endpoint ‐ not measured	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Not measured.
Functioning at follow‐up ‐ not measured	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Not measured.
Prosocial behaviour at study endpoint ‐ not measured	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Not measured.
Prosocial behaviour at follow‐up ‐ not measured	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Not measured.
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_438972912524011941.

^a Downgraded one level owing to study limitations (concrete risk of performance and detection bias at least in some trials).
^b Downgraded one level owing to imprecision (optimal information size of 350 participants per arm not achieved).
^c Downgraded one level owing to imprecision (the confidence intervals included appreciable benefit and harm).