A short reaction to invited commentaries on Mundt et al., this issue

Abstract

this is likely to continue to limit cultural adaptation and dissemination of evidence based interventions such as NET. Ultimately, our di⁄culty in providing su⁄cient post training practice and supervision forour localcounsellors touseNETinLMICs is constrained by the number of people we must serve inorder to get the funds tobe there in the ¢rst place. The reality for us in places such as Nairobi, Dadaab, and Gulu (where wefaceoverwhelmingnumbersof individuals in need) is that we have a clear mandate fromour funders to provide services to a very large number of individuals relative to stai resources. These ‘numbers reached’ outcomes practically mandate short term group approaches, regardless of research considerations. This is also true for us within middle income contexts such as Jordan, where we are grappling with the Syrian refugee crisis. Thus, outside of our USAprogrammes, NET remains a luxury tool to learn for the very few clients we treat via individualmodalities. Iftherewereawaytoadaptnarrativeexposure work to a group format, we could foresee greateruseof it inLMICs,asthiswouldbetter ¢t our funder mandates and needs within those contexts.