The conference emphasised the critical importance of designing and implementing interventions that are culturally sensitive and context-specific, particularly in conflict-affected regions where Western-centric models often fall short. Participants highlighted the limitations of universal approaches to mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and called for a shift towards more nuanced, locally-informed strategies.
One of the key challenges discussed was the application of Western mental health frameworks in non-Western contexts. Many interventions developed in the Global North are based on cultural assumptions and terminologies that do not always align with the lived realities of people in conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This disconnect can lead to interventions that are not only ineffective but may also perpetuate stigma or reinforce negative perceptions. A notable observation was that the Arabic translation for ‘vulnerability’, which might be seen as positive in a Western therapeutic environment, equated to ‘weakness’, which was seen as a very negative trait among Arabic-speaking men and boys, making engagement with MHPSS offerings harder.
To address these issues, participants advocated for a greater emphasis on local knowledge and the involvement of local stakeholders in the design and implementation of interventions. Culturally sensitive approaches were seen as essential for ensuring that interventions resonate with the communities they are intended to serve. This includes using locally relevant terminology, understanding cultural norms around mental health, and involving community leaders and organisations in the process.
There is a need to understand how communities already understand and deal with trauma and build on that. For example, there may be a greater role for family and community, rather than individual therapy, and this should be considered in programming. To understand how trauma and mental health are understood, an anthropological approach led by local clinicians may be helpful. Furthermore, a bottom-up flow of information through supervision structures should be encouraged to inform and refine interventions, rather than relying on only top-down instruction when implementing interventions. In mental health programming, it may be appropriate to avoid medical labels (e.g., PTSD, depression) and instead use narrative formulations that describe a child’s difficulties in a way that reduces the risk of stigma. This may also prove a more ‘child-friendly’ method of providing MHPSS to children, using language they can understand and resonate with.
Participants stressed the importance of adopting a holistic approach to mental health in conflict-affected areas, integrating psychological support with a wider range of programming and with broader social and political reforms. This includes recognising the complex interplay between individual trauma, material conditions, and community dynamics, and ensuring that interventions are not just focused on treating symptoms but also on addressing the underlying causes of psychological distress. As such, addressing housing, livelihoods, security, and justice, as well as restoring a sense of normality and hope through education, was seen as at least as important as MHPSS interventions. Forced separation from parents can also be a significant source of trauma for children – often more traumatic than exposure to conflict – and this should be taken account in policy (e.g., repatriation of mothers and children associated with ISIS).