Evolving Through Challenges-Reflections from Intervention’s Editorial Board on the Financial Situation in the Humanitarian Sector

We introduce this 2025 Intervention collection of field reports, articles and personal reflections during a time of significant change, both within the journal and in the broader field of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in settings affected by conflict, displacement and other emergencies. The past year has brought about humanitarian crises that have been extremely distressing and have often had a profound impact on us, not only as professionals but also as individuals. Additionally, the increasing complexity of the global response to these crises has unfolded amid significant structural and financial challenges in our field. Despite all turmoil, Intervention journal remains committed to promoting co-learning, equitable collaboration, an inclusive evidence base and dialogue. We strongly believe that this is crucial to our mission, now more than ever. After presenting an overview of publications in 2025, the Editorial Board of Intervention would like to highlight two important changes. The first concerns our operational transformation, as we transition from publishing by issue to a continuous, ahead-of-print model. The second change is related to the shrinking financial resources and growing needs of the MHPSS field, which require us to adjust, innovate, and progress. Highlights from 2025 This year, Intervention published one field report, one psychometric review, five articles and one personal reflections, showcasing diverse developments and insights in the MHPSS field. The collection highlights both emerging challenges and innovative approaches across humanitarian and conflict-affected contexts. We would also like to acknowledge our collaboration with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the World Health Organization and the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine /UK Health Security Agency) over the last year. Together, we organised Academic Writing Programmes for MHPSS Technical Working Group Co-Chairs (Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group on MHPSS in Emergency Settings) and for MHPSS professionals working in the Middle East region. In his field report by Toczyski (pp. 4–12), he examines the mental health needs of Ukrainian refugees in Poland through a 15-day MHPSS training course, demonstrating how targeted capacity building can strengthen local support networks. Building on the theme of tools and assessment, Potocky et al. (pp. 63–72) review commonly used mental health screening instruments for adult refugees, providing critical insights into their psychometric properties and crosscultural validity. Meanwhile, Chaar et al. (pp. 35–42) explore the development of a Mental Health Service User Association in Lebanon, illustrating the practical and structural challenges of fostering meaningful participation and collaboration. The focus then shifts to children and adolescents, with Dar and Lakshmana documenting the behavioural and emotional difficulties (pp. 13–22) of adolescents in Kashmir, and Song et al. (pp. 43–51) examining specialised mental health care for children in humanitarian settings. Expanding on family- and community-based approaches, Nikolaou et al. (pp. 52–63) describe multifamily healing spaces in Rwanda as a pathway to address intergenerational trauma, while Gebus et al. (pp. 23–34) highlight the impact of a trauma-focused psychosocial support programme for Syrian refugee children in Lebanon, showing the value of short-term, targeted interventions in complex humanitarian contexts. Complementing these empirical studies, personal reflections offer rich perspectives on practice and lived experience. In his personal reflection, Alsahou (pp. 73–74) emphasizes the importance of simplicity, cultural relevance, and everyday expressions of support. Together, these publications underscore the ongoing need for contextually tailored, participatory innovative approaches to MHPSS in humanitarian settings. They illustrate the field’s evolving challenges while offering lessons for strengthening both practice policy across diverse settings From Journal Issues to Continuous Publication: Sharing Knowledge in Real Time Since its inception, Intervention has followed an issue-based publishing model, at times curating collections of articles around specific themes in special sections or time-bound releases (initially three times a year and later twice a year). This format has served us well, fostering coherence and consistency across diverse contributions. Yet, as academic journals have largely moved to online publishing and the pace of MHPSS evidence generation accelerates, we have recognised the limitations of waiting for full issues to be assembled before publishing. We have therefore decided to transition towards a more dynamic and timely approach to knowledge exchange. Beginning this year, we have shifted to a continuous publication model, where articles are published online as soon as they have completed peer review and production. The new approach aims to ensure that research, field reports and reflections reach our readership promptly. It aligns with our mission to support evidence-based action in rapidly evolving humanitarian contexts, where new findings or lessons learned can inform best practices on the ground. While this shift is designed to expedite publication, our standards and mission remain unchanged. Every submission will continue to undergo rigorous peer review and editorial scrutiny. Our mission will remain to ensure that the voices of those outside academic institutions are documented, heard and shared. At times, this implies extending extensive editorial support to first-time authors and hosting academic writing programmes. We hope this change will enhance Intervention journal’s role as a responsive platform, bridging research, practice and policy across humanitarian and development settings. Reflections from the Editorial Board on Funding Cuts in Humanitarian Response and Their Impact on MHPSS Worldwide, organisations involved in MHPSS are grappling with significant reductions in funding from governments and other funders in the Global North for humanitarian response and development projects. These reductions have resulted in widespread organisational restructuring, job losses, programme closure and travel restrictions that hinder collaboration and knowledge sharing (Howard, 2025; Narita et al., 2025). The suddenness of these cuts has disrupted not only current programmes but also the long-term capacity of the field, affecting workforce, research infrastructure and institutional memory. This issue has been comprehensively outlined in a recently published multi-agency advocacy paper (Advocacy paper: MHPSS in humanitarian action – A 2025 multi-agency resource., 2025), which underscores that MHPSS is a lifesaving, cross-cutting and a foundational component of recovery and development, calling for its systematic integration across sectors and for community-driven, contextually grounded programming. We aim to share reflections and insights on how the field can comprehend, adjust to and navigate this changing landscape. Why This is a Catastrophe The consequences of these funding cuts are profound and widespread. At the programmatic level, they result in reduced service coverage and immediate uncertainty for staff, while communities already dealing with the mental health consequences of war, conflict, crises and displacement face diminished support. Beyond these immediate effects, the cuts jeopardise the foundational progress made in integrating MHPSS into humanitarian systems. Furthermore, this undermines the notion of human rights and access to healthcare, effectively normalising living with harm in the aftermath of conflict and disaster. This combination of immediate harm and long-term capacity erosion makes the current situation a catastrophe for both the field and the populations it serves. The sudden and drastic cuts brought an abrupt end to many activities and disrupted mutually respectful relationships. In some cases, these cuts have jeopardised ongoing research projects, despite initiated data collection and prior agreements with participants and research partners. This has led to the failure to utilise previously collected data, undermining the efforts of both participants and researchers, the consent process and goes against ethical principles in research (Offord et al., 2025). Efforts to rebuild this trust will most likely entail a lengthy process, involving funders, consortia and local communities at research sites. The implications of this wider funding issue becomes visible in the context of Peru as well. Here victims of political violence face compounded challenges due to restricted funding, restrictive policies targeting non-governmental organisations, and threats to human rights defenders. Legal and psychosocial support is often unavailable, leaving survivors afraid to access public mental health services. These conditions not only exacerbate trauma but also undermine trust in institutions and weaken democratic accountability. Why This May be an Opportunity for Change However, this moment of contraction may accelerate the restructuring of the ways humanitarian assistance is provided and how decisions are made. This time of change may prompt us to focus on what truly matters, promoting sustainable responses and fair collaboration, and empowerment of local actors. This It may catalyse deeper collaboration, foster innovation and underscore the importance of integrated, cross-sectoral strategies that connect MHPSS with education, protection, health and livelihoods activities. Decades of narrative around localisation of humanitarian support and aid has not yet translated sufficiently into changes in power structures. Despite the broad acknowledgement within and outside the MHPSS field that local actors are the first to respond to an emergency and have the greatest knowledge of local resources, language, beliefs, coping strategies, culture and geography, so are best placed to offer contextually appropriate support, there has been little change in how most humanitarian interventions are implemented in practice. One of the potential opportunities in the current context is that humanitarian organisations will need to create space for truly user-led ways of working if they are to remain relevant and useful. These approaches can promote mental health and psychosocial wellbeing by strengthening factors such as self-efficacy, community-efficacy and social connectedness. This time demands bold action: Empowering national and local leadership and reducing dependency on external funding cycles to rebalance power and ownership. Strengthening community-based systems, which have consistently served as the foundation of psychosocial support in crisis-affected areas. Documenting and sharing adaptive practices to ensure that innovation born from necessity is captured and disseminated widely. Looking Ahead We welcome contributions from practitioners, researchers, policymakers and affected community members to Intervention journal. We encourage submissions that challenge assumptions, present real-world experiences and suggest new approaches for maintaining MHPSS for people affected by conflict and other in emergencies. To all our authors, reviewers, advisory board members and readers: we appreciate your continued support and involvement. Despite the challenges in our field, we believe in the strength and innovation of the MHPSS community. Together, we can transform limitations into possibilities and uphold the importance of mental health and psychosocial well-being in humanitarian response and recovery. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.