- Evidence from six eligible studies supports mental health promotion effectiveness for Colombian conflict victims, but the overall evidence base remains limited.
- Only two randomised clinical trials reported improvements in depression, anxiety and PTSD; methodological flaws impeded consistent evaluation.
- Recommendations: conduct larger trials using standardised assessment tools to strengthen government-led interventions and unify outcome measurement.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed). 2026 Jul-Sep;55(3):257-268. doi: 10.1016/j.rcpeng.2026.10.005.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore mental health promotion interventions for victims of the Colombian armed conflict.
DESIGN: Scoping review.
METHODS: We searched databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scielo, Cochrane, LiLACS, Google Scholar, and PsycArticles for studies on mental health promotion for victims of the Colombian armed conflict. We included clinical trials, qualitative research, meta-analyses, scoping and systematic reviews, and government reports.
RESULTS: A total of 317 articles were identified. Four additional records were included from literature research, and four more from gray literature and government reports. After screening with Rayyan QCRI and removing duplicates, 259 records remained. A paired-blind screening left 16 articles for analysis. After applying inclusion criteria, only six studies were eligible. Two were randomized clinical trials showing effects on depression, anxiety, and PTSD. One assessed functionality impairments.
CONCLUSION: Six studies supported the effectiveness of mental health promotion interventions for victims. However, only two were randomized trials, and methodological limitations-such as sample loss, population differences, and non-standardized scales-hindered unified assessments. Larger samples and standardized tools are needed to improve government-led interventions.
PMID:42957391 | DOI:10.1016/j.rcpeng.2026.10.005
Share Evidence Blueprint
Save to Google Notes
Search Google Scholar
Save as PDF
⭐ My Revision List
