Is the RUMERTIME Process™ a Viable Multisystemic CBT Intervention? Perspectives from the Field

Author Note

Yvonne I. Larrier, Counseling & Human Services Department, Indiana University South Bend; Monica D. Allen, Department of Health Science and Recreation, San Jose State University; Irwin M. Larrier, Harold Abel School of Psychology, Capella University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yvonne Larrier, Counseling & Human Services Department, Indiana University South Bend, South Bend, IN 46615. E-mail: ylarrier@gcscored.com

Abstract

We live in an increasingly borderless world, in which changes in one part of the globe rapidly influence all other areas. Increased international migration, along with the accompanying movement of information, affects the political, economic and cultural spheres in distant countries. Along with benefits that include increased knowledge and greater educational and cultural opportunities come drawbacks at the systemic level, including adverse impacts to cultural practices and beliefs, family relationships and the social cohesiveness of communities. In particular, changes that occur in high-income countries are experienced in a variety of ways in low and medium income countries. One way is how people view themselves and their places in the world; individuals need to re-equip themselves with skills, particularly intra- and interpersonal skills, to be productive global citizens. Two of the many barriers to doing this in the under-resourced parts of the world are access to resources and shortage of trained individuals to deliver these scant interventions. We introduce the RUMERTIME Process™, a five-step psychosocial problem-solving strategy as a possible multisystemic cognitive behavioral therapy intervention. The results of our pilot case studies, conducted in various formats, settings, and with diverse socio-demographics, demonstrate the success of the task-sharing approach of the RUMERTIME Process™ in training laypeople to deliver these psychosocial skills using our framework.

Keywords: Cognitive Behavior Therapy, RUMERTIME Process, Task-Sharing, Multisystemic interventions

Introduction

We now live in a borderless world where groups of people within and between countries are influencing each other with rapidity. According to the United Nations (UN), the number of international migrants worldwide has increased greatly over the past fifteen years, reaching 244 million in 2015, up from 222 million in 2010 and 173 million in 2000 (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division [UN], 2016). This increased international migration affects the economic, political, and cultural agendas in distant countries, which then has direct and indirect impacts on families, schools, workplaces, and communities worldwide. In addition to benefits such as increased knowledge and greater career, educational, and cultural opportunities, the movement of people and information across borders has drawbacks at multiple systemic levels. These rapid shifts are adversely impacting cultural practices, norms, and beliefs, family relationships and structures, livelihoods, social cohesiveness of communities, and the level of workforce preparedness (Dreher & Gaston, 2008; White, Imperiale, & Perera, 2016) .

Fundamental to a world without borders is an intensified interconnection between and amongst proximal and distal influences and systems, which affects individuals in homes, communities, and countries worldwide. As such, a change in (one part of) a system anywhere is registered or felt everywhere. For example, as economic, educational, social, cultural, and political changes occur in high-income countries (HICs), families, schools, workplaces, communities, livelihoods, and relationships in low and medium income countries (LAMICs) will experience these shifts in a variety of ways. One of those ways is demonstrated by how individuals view themselves and their place in the world. Some individuals who are embedded in resource rich environments may view themselves as the dominant group having unchecked access to propagating their cultural norms, practices, and beliefs. On the other hand, those who are embedded in under-resourced environments may view themselves as disenfranchised and unqualified to capably remain as contributing global citizens, missing opportunities to sustain or improve their lives (Kaul, 2012). As a result, individuals across diverse settings are obligated, based on global demands, to re-equip themselves with job skills, academic training, and most importantly, highly developed intra- and interpersonal skills in order to be considered productive global citizens prepared to thrive in an information age(International Labor Office, 2010)

Unfortunately, the ability to re-equip oneself with the appropriate intra- and interpersonal problem-solving skills is usually met with numerous barriers, especially in under-resourced settings and societies. The number of barriers encountered by individuals needing to access problem-solving skills and social emotional competencies is daunting (Memon et. al, 2016; Verdali, 2016). Two of the most pressing barriers are related to interventions. Globally, but predominantly in Low and Middle Income Countries (LAMICs), access to intra- and interpersonal problem-solving interventions is limited, and even more so there is a shortage of trained individuals to intervene in the lives of those needing assistance (Saxena, Thorncroft, Knapp & Whitford, 2007). Acquiring and utilizing intra- and interpersonal skills supports the preparation of individuals so they can competently navigate the challenges and demands of globalization.

Purpose Statement

This paper introduces a simple, five-step psychosocial problem-solving strategy as a possible multisystemic cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention. Developing and introducing the RUMERTIME Process™ (RP) serves two purposes: (1) to aid in eliminating the global psychosocial intervention gap by closely aligning the RP with key multisystemic intervention characteristics; and (2) to alleviate the shortage of trained individuals who can deliver these psychosocial skills by using a task-sharing approach.

The RUMERTIME Process™

The RUMERTIME Process™ is a five-step psychosocial problem-solving strategy that supports individuals as they move from a position of intra- and interpersonal imbalance to intra- and interpersonal balance. RUMERTIME is an acronym and individuals RUMERize when a triggering event occurs in their life and activates negative thinking, acting, and feeling patterns. Individuals interrupt this pattern of negativity as they Recognize, Understand, Manage, Express, and Reflect on their Thoughts, Interactions, Mindsets, and Emotions (RUMERTIME) while they relate to the triggering event. Recognizing and understanding the triggering event helps the individual to become self-aware; managing and expressing their thoughts, interactions, mindsets, and emotions (TIME) regarding the triggering event helps people to find ways to productively handle and appropriately externalize their TIME, thus facilitating growth and development in the areas of self- and relationship management skills. Reflecting upon the triggering event, individuals are able to make a clear-headed assessment of benefits and drawbacks to their involvement with it. Responsible decision-making skills are actuated in this reflecting. Practicing these steps on a daily basis with any life situation, whether it has to do with self or relationships, can promote the development of individuals becoming socially and emotionally competent.

Key characteristics of multisystemic interventions

In order to ensure the effective development and implementation of interventions, Weine (2011) and others (Force, 2005; World Health Organization, 2004) have suggested eight key characteristics that are necessary when designing multisystemic interventions. As we carried out the pilots for the RP in diverse settings, these eight elements were used as standards by which to measure the RP’s effectiveness and its suitability as an intervention to be used globally and to be delivered primarily by non-mental health specialists to help-seekers experiencing intra- and interpersonal imbalance.

Feasibility.

Feasibility as a construct in public health practice incorporates a variety of aspects of intervention delivery (Brooke-Sumner et al., 2015). One aspect is whether the intervention can be carried out as planned given the cultural, financial, time, and human capital constraints (Brooke-Sumner et al, 2015; Weine, 2011).

Acceptability.

In order for an intervention to make a difference in the lives of individuals, it must be accepted, or received well, by the help-seeker in addition to those delivering the intervention. It must adequately fit the needs, strengths, traditions, beliefs, and culture of the help-seeker as well as of the service providers and organizations that will carry out the intervention (Weine, 2011).

Culturally Responsive.

For an intervention to be considered culturally responsive, it must incorporate some rudimentary components, such as the voice, beliefs, and experiences of the client. It must also be reflective of locally appropriate (relevant) examples, stories, games, metaphors, and idioms (Woods-Jaeger, Kava, Akiba, Lucid, & Dorsey, 2017).

Multilevel.

According to Cook (2012) and Coyne (Coyne & Cook, 2004), we are all interconnected. Change in one system influences change in another. Effective interventions must take into account the multiple settings and systems that influence a person’s life course.

Time Focused.

The intervention must also take into consideration the time factor from various perspectives. For example, a migrant family is subject to crop cycles, which impacts the continuity of their children being in school or the family receiving some type of psychosocial intervention ( Weine, 2011).

Prosaicness.

In order to gain and keep a participant’s attention, interventions must be easy to understand, be relatable, and be engaging. It is important to make special efforts to include family members who are not literate or educated (Weine, 2011).

Effectiveness.

The intervention must show that it is contributing to the improvement in and transformation of self, relationships, and situations. The effectiveness element can be measured in multiple ways. The question to be answered when implementing an intervention is always “How is the help-seeker different after engaging in the intervention?” (Weine, 2011).

Adaptability.

An effective intervention is generalizable and flexible so that it can be modified to fit diverse settings, needs, ethnocultural groups, time, ages, and resource levels( Woods-Jaeger, Kava, Akiba, Lucid, & Dorsey, 2017; Weine, 2011).

These eight attributes of multisystemic interventions were used as the benchmark during the development and implementation phases of the RP. When measured against these eight criteria, the RP as an intervention increases in credence.

As a new and innovative intervention, the RP must be established on a sound foundation and be closely aligned with research if it is to attain the goals outlined in the purpose statement. By way of illustration, during the implementation phase, the RP was considered adaptable by educators, parents, students, and community stakeholders in the United States and several English-speaking Caribbean countries. These individuals represented different levels of educational attainment and emotional literacy awareness. Furthermore, the RP’s feasibility, acceptability, and cultural responsiveness characteristics have also been anecdotally documented by individuals of all ages and in multiple settings and societies. For example, a layperson highly trained to use the RP stated that they found it easy to learn and easy to teach. This same RP-trained layperson stated that many of their clients reported feeling valued, understood, and empowered to use the RP problem solving skills in their daily interactions. Reports like these highlight the acceptability trait of the RP.

This quote from a RUMERizer, from an island in the Eastern Caribbean, said, “Even though this problem-solving process was developed in a HIC, it is so relevant and practical to me, here in this LAMIC, as I work through the trauma of my childhood sexual abuse. It’s like the author knew what to ask me personally to help me move from imbalance to balance.” This quote speaks directly to the cultural responsiveness and adaptability of the RP.

The following compiled comments were shared by several educators across multiple school settings and levels, and highlight the adaptability, prosaicness, and multilevel features of the RP. “Because of the RP’s emphasis on intra- and interpersonal relationships with self and others in diverse settings and situations, we, as educators, find it very easy to use in order to initiate and facilitate discussions among students, whether it’s on a one-to-one basis, in small groups, or in classroom settings. The RP gives us and our students an organized but flexible, simple five-step strategy to solve problems that arise on a daily basis in the classroom, on the playground, at home, and even in the neighborhood. One of the other benefits is that it can be formatted as simple worksheets, posters, card games, journal activities, board games, or any format that is feasible for us to use as educators.”

The time allotted for engaging in the RP is determined by the needs and agenda of the facilitator and participants in each setting. For example, in an education setting where instructional time is jealously guarded, a counselor or other educator using the RP can creatively integrate the five-step problem-solving strategy into academic content areas, such as language arts and social studies.

The RP helps individuals move from intra- and interpersonal imbalance to balance and from unconscious living to conscious living. There are several ways to determine effectiveness when using the RP: (a) when an individual is able to recognize the connection between his thoughts and behaviors. Even if that person does not initially move beyond recognizing to understanding, effectiveness is measured incrementally along the cognitive-behavior continuum; and (b) pre and post assessments are used by trained RP facilitators to evaluate the difference using the RP makes in a person’s life.

Changes in student behavior were noted from written responses from pre and post assessments and semi-structured interviews (administered by RP Intervention Specialists) of K-12 grade students engaging in the RP at their schools. Prior to engaging in the RP, some students were bullies, disrespectful to self and others, failing classes, and being suspended regularly. Once they started engaging in the RP, some of these students’ self-reported completely changed behaviors and others saw a decrease in their negative behaviors.

Foundations of the RUMERTIME Process™

The RP is built on a solid theoretical foundation drawn from five well-established principles: Ecological Systems Theory, Erikson’s eight-stage Psychosocial Development, Strengths-Based Approach, Social Learning Theory, and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (CBT) approaches. Aside from CBT, the other theories share some similarities that cross over theoretical boundaries. They:

• conceptualize and explain human behavior as occurring within and across social contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cook, 2012; Coyne & Cook, 2004; Feldman, 2014).
• consider factors other than the individual in influencing human development.
• explain behavior with reference to several external factors and systems, including family, organization, and communities. They also bring these into the stages of intervention, planning, and implementation (Vimont, 2012; Watamura, Phillips, Morrissey, McCartney, & Bub, 2011).

CBT, the fifth foundational theory, is a psychosocial intervention that is the most widely used evidenced based practice and intervention (Beck, 2011; Erford, 2010; Field, Beeson, & Jones, 2015; Hollon & Beck, 2013). The focus of this therapy is on the development of coping strategies to solve current problems and to change unhelpful patterns in cognitions (thoughts, mindsets), attitudes, behaviors (interactions), and emotions (Benjamin et al, 2011; Vernon, 2009).

The five foundational theories of the RP are empirically supported and, by extension, the RP can be considered an evidence-based intervention. Extant literature suggests that interventions developed with multiple theoretical foundations are more effective than those lacking a theoretical base. Furthermore, interventions developed from a combination of theories and concepts have greater effects (Coyne & Cook, 2004; Glanz & Bishop, 2010; Glanz, Rimer & Viswanath, 2008; Hutchinson, 2011; Lundy, 2008; Office of Behavioral & Social Sciences Research, 2017). Hence the rationale to employ multiple theories in the development of the RP.

Just as sound theories lay the foundation for the development of effective multisystemic interventions, so too does acquiring and utilizing Social Emotional Competencies (SECs) lay the foundation for the optimal social, emotional, academic, and career development of all individuals (children, youth, and adults) (Durlak, Domitrovich, Weissberg, & Gullota, 2015).

Social Emotional Competencies (SECs)

The five SECs for individuals to acquire are: self-awareness, social-awareness, self- and relationship management skills, while making responsible decisions (Bandura, 1977; 1986; Elias et al., 2008). The acquisition and utilization of these five SECs help individuals realize their full potential, as they live balanced and productive lives while contributing to improving self, others, and societies. This state of well-being experienced by individuals is an outgrowth of living a life of intra- and interpersonal balance. For instance, research suggests that students who acquire and utilize SECs demonstrate kindness and cooperation among peers, are less likely to be bullied or bully, and are able to make better decisions (CASEL, 2014). Adults who are socially-emotionally competent tend to manage their stress better, receive feedback better, and are happier, kinder, and have less chaotic relationships (CASEL, 2014).

The goals of the RUMERTIME Process™ are twofold:

• to provide individuals with a simple, culturally responsive, five-step psychosocial problem-solving strategy for addressing challenges they experience within themselves, with others, and across a variety of situations and settings; and
• to help individuals utilize the problem-solving strategy in their daily interactions, thus leading to people becoming socially-emotionally competent students, family members, workers, and citizens.

The RUMERTIME Process™ Goals Operationalized

Task Sharing

In order to create access for all, we utilize the task-sharing delivery model. Task sharing is a delivery method used primarily in global mental health. It continues to be an effective method for reducing the mental health treatment gap and increasing the number of people providing much-needed mental health treatment globally (Patel, 2012; Patel, Choudhary, Rehman, & Verdeli, 2011). The grave shortage of mental health professionals, predominantly in LAMICs but also in HICs, is well documented (Saxena et al., 2007). Narrowing the treatment gap globally requires engaging and training laypersons, community health workers (CHWs), and motivated, compassionate community members to deliver rudimentary psychosocial interventions so that lives can be transformed and communities can become safer; people will acquire the social emotional competencies to help them effectively address intra- and interpersonal imbalance (Chibanda et al., 2015; Patel et al., 2011).

Task sharing is a recent phenomenon directly created as an organic response to the acquisition intervention gap and the utilization shortage. In task sharing, some of the tasks normally performed by mental health professionals are shifted to lay counselors, CHWs, and community members who are trained and supervised in delivering basic psychosocial interventions (e.g., Friendship Bench Therapy). Research suggests that, with appropriate training and supervision, these lay counselors, CHWs, and community members can effectively deliver psychosocial interventions with significant reductions in mental health disorders and symptoms (Bolton et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2011; Patel et al., 2011; Rehman, Malik, Sikander, Roberts, & Creed, 2008). For example, the Friendship Bench therapy project studied 573 anxiety and depression patients for a period of six months. Half of these patients received treatment from the nurses and the other half took part in the Friendship Bench project. After six months, 50% of those who were treated at the clinic by the nurses still showed symptoms of depression and only 13% of those who participated in The Friendship Bench program still had symptoms (Chibanda et al, 2015).

More Perspectives from the Field

The following two case studies will help to demonstrate the various formats, settings, and socio-demographics in which we utilized the RP.

Case Study #1: The RP during an individual session

Client backgroundAntoinette (pseudonym) is a 25-year old single black female presenting with a self-diagnosis of anxiety and anger due to feeling bullied in her workplace. She was embarrassed and afraid to seek mental health support. Embarrassed, because of the stigma in which mental illness is perceived in her culture. Afraid, as she did not want her employer to find out she was receiving counseling because it might negatively impact her continued employment with that organization.

Disclosure Statement Brenda is a community member who was extensively trained to deliver the RP (basic counseling skills, the underlying theories, and the RP). Her first responsibility is to explain the intervention strategy (RP) to Antoinette, including information about the connection between life problems and thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, and emotions. She also explains how the RP works. For example, Brenda can say, “Antoinette, I know you had to overcome a few barriers in order to come to see me today. I commend you for taking this very important step. Just to let you know, more people than you are aware of struggle with very similar challenges as you. However, they try to solve it on their own without the knowledge and skills that I will be teaching you. The problem-solving strategies that you will learn will equip you to solve your problems on your own.” Brenda explained to Antoinette that she can move from a position in which she is anxious and angry (intra- and interpersonal imbalance) to a position in which she is in control, calm, and in balance, able to effectively apply social-emotional competencies to herself, with others, and to the situation of the bullying at work.

Step 1: Recognize. The beginning step in this change process (RP) consists of Antoinette being guided by Brenda on how to identify, or become conscious and aware of, her thoughts, interactions, mindsets, and emotions about herself, others, the workplace, and the bullying situation in which she is embroiled. Therefore probing questions that start with “how, why, what, and can you tell me?” tend to elicit detailed responses. For example, Brenda asked “Antoinette, can you describe the thoughts about yourself, your colleagues, and the workplace that have dominated your mind? Can you identify behaviors (interactions) that have been helpful and those that have been harmful? What are your beliefs about yourself, others, and the bullying situation at work? Have your beliefs been positive or negative? What emotions have been most pervasive related to self, others, and the workplace bullying?”

The goal of step 1 is to help Antoinette identify how her thoughts, interactions, mindsets and emotions are contributing factors to her continued state of anxiety and anger. Listening to herself and hearing Brenda reflect the content of her narrative and emotions will help Antoinette to become more conscious of her power, and fine-tune her core problems. As important as this first step of recognizing is, it is not enough for change to take place.

Step 2: Understand. In this step, Brenda’s goal is to continue to collaboratively work with Antoinette to get to the root of the thoughts, interactions, mindsets, and emotions that she unearthed in step 1 – Recognize. In this step, Antoinette learns about the origins of her thinking patterns (thoughts), where she learned to respond to triggers with anxiety and anger (emotions), and how her beliefs (mindsets) have shaped her outlook on her present triggering event (bullying). Brenda asked Antoinette probing questions like, “What do you know about the origins of this pattern of thinking and responding? Do you have any early recollections (memories) of experiences when you felt anxious and angry like this? How often do you feel anxious and angry? In the past, what types of situations have triggered these emotions? What do you believe about people who experience anxiety and anger?”

Step 2 can be a very intense step and people’s reactions will vary greatly. It is important that Brenda creates a safe space that is reflective of Antoinette’s cultural context and level of comprehension, and be accepting and non-judgmental. During this step, Brenda should reflect, paraphrase, and restate what she hears and understands Antoinette to be sharing. Again, this validates Antoinette as a valuable human being and lets her know that Brenda has been listening.

Step 3: Manage. In this third step, Brenda reviewed the problem that Antoinette had identified-bullying at her workplace. She dug deeper to understand the origin of the problem and continued to explore with Antoinette how she presently copes with the thoughts, beliefs (mindsets), behaviors, and emotions related to any triggering event or problem in her life. Brenda proceeded to say to Antoinette, “ Now that we have identified, brought to the conscious level, the problem and the cause of the problem, we need to explore how you have managed your thoughts, mindsets, and emotions in the past, and what the outcomes have been.” Brenda also asked Antoinette, “Can you describe to me the types of helpful and unhelpful behaviors you engage in toward yourself and others as a means of coping with the bullying situation at your workplace.” Brenda and Antoinette continued to explore the helpful and unhelpful self-management skills that Antoinette had utilized. They evaluated what her desired outcomes were and how she could achieve them by managing her TIME in an effective manner.
Throughout the RP process, especially in this step(step three), it is important that Brenda is mindful of the fact that her goal is to teach Antoinette the five steps in the RP problem-solving strategy and not to solve all of Antoinette’s problems.

Step 4: Express. Managing and expressing are closely aligned with each other, as managing TIME is externalized through some form of expression. Expression takes many forms, but the common aim of all types of expression lies in the ability to externalize one’s internal dialogue. However, the nuance of this step comes when Brenda helps Antoinette to intentionally and consciously identify her usual mode of expressing herself. Brenda continued probing Antoinette to explore her everyday responses to self-expression. Are Antoinette’s responses useful or not to her? During this phase, Antoinette thoughtfully discussed methods of expressing herself that might be a departure from what she was currently doing or has done. Brenda facilitated role-play to help Antoinette determine her level of comfort, as well as the feasibility of utilizing some possible novel approaches to self-expression.

Step 5: Reflect. As Brenda came to the last step of the RP, she helped Antoinette look back and review the previous four steps, particularly what outcomes were achieved, unearthed, and changed. Brenda reinforced to Antoinette that, in order to learn and to live her best life, it is critical that she reflects on her experiences. Brenda’s guided questioning continued along the lines of “What have I learned from this experience? How did I contribute to this experience? What other factors contributed to influencing and inspiring my experience? How will I move forward? What will I do differently? What will I leave the same? How do I see myself as I move forward? Who and what will I take along with me or leave behind?”

Step 5 is not only the last step in the RP five-step psychosocial problem-solving intervention, but it is also the step that reviews whether or not the participants have seen any change in themselves and their situations. It is also when Antoinette could begin to experience a sense of empowerment as she saw how she was now in charge of her thought patterns, behaviors, mindset, and emotions. At the end of her time learning and using the RP, Antoinette stated to Brenda, “I feel unbelievably empowered and courageous now. I don’t feel anxious or angry anymore, because I have this five step strategy that I have been using which makes me feel powerful and in control of myself.”

Case Study #2: The RP during a small group session.

This small group was a psycho-educational group, heterogeneous in terms of gender, age (everyone was over 18), race and ethnicity, socio-economic status, religion, and sexual orientation. The purpose of the group was to teach adult survivors of child abuse (any and all forms) the five-step RP to problem solve current life challenges that were negatively impacting their sense of self and relationships across diverse settings. The group comprised five individuals and was conducted over a nine-week period for 90 minutes per week. Members were given a pre and post assessment, a RUMERTIME Process™ Guided Activity Journal, and a small group curriculum workbook specifically developed for this group. The following interview took place about one month after the nine weeks of meeting and of using the RP. Question from interviewer (Q): What made you decide to join this small group? Response from RP group member (R): When I first heard about it, I was very interested to learn about the topic, but as time got closer to the date of the meetings I started to get cold feet. A friend came with me and she said just try it out. Best decision I’ve made, which has changed my life forever for the best.

Q: How would you describe your state of mind at that point?
R: I would say determined to stick with it no matter what, because I’m not a quitter.

Q: How would you describe your emotional state at the time of your entrance into the group?
R: Very worried and anxious about what was going to happen. I’m the type of person who is great at one on one conversations. I can read their interactions and evaluate their body language and such, but in the group setting, I felt anxious, very uneasy. Nervous I would say something wrong and create a problem.

Q: How did you feel about joining a small group?
R: Very uneasy, mostly because I was acknowledging I needed help and on top of that, there was more than one person to witness it. I’m OK at being vulnerable when it comes to one person at a time. When it’s more than two, I get anxiety problems and I just get very irritable and drained emotionally.

Q: Have you ever been a part of a small group like this before?
R: No

Q: Describe a typical group session.
R: Walk in, say hello to everyone. Usually there would be food, so that help break the tension in the room. Then we would all sit in a circle or at least facing each other, and then the group facilitator would ask us what our anxiety temperature levels were (on a scale of 0-10 what was our anxiety level) and then describe why. We would go around the room, and then after everyone had expressed themselves we would begin the session with prayer, and the conversation would start off with tackling what was in our booklets or we would work on what was causing the most anxiety or stress between the individuals.

Q: How did each aspect of the group impact you?
R: In the greetings and time eating and sitting in a circle, it helped just create the atmosphere of fellowship. When the facilitator would ask our temp. I knew she cared to know because of the questions she would ask. Therapists have their standard questions but when they care it all sounds different and genuine. It made me have a safe space. I knew God was there because of how the facilitator integrated prayer, and the Bible, and the RUMERTIME Process&trade. To me it’s important to include God when we are trying to heal and become better versions of ourselves.

Q: Is the RUMERTIME Process™ easy to use and easy to understand? Can anybody who can read use it?
R: Yes, easy to understand but hard to use, only because it takes a lot of wanting to change and heal with this process. For me, personally, it has taken a while for me to break down my routine and change my way of going about the situations that happen in my life. The RUMERTIME Process™ is not just a quick fix. You have to be strong enough to rip off all the easy fix bandages and start to heal correctly. It won’t be easy, but with some work, the outcome is just worth the work that you have to put in.

Conclusion

The RUMERTIME Process™ is a five-step psychosocial problem-solving strategy that can be used anytime, anywhere, and by anyone. These five steps are what we as thinking beings use on a daily basis; however, most of us engage in this process unconsciously. RP brings an everyday process from our unconscious level to a conscious level, so that we can be the drivers of our destiny and the architect of our futures. In the process of bringing the strategy from the unconscious to the conscious, individuals are able to help themselves move from a position of intra- and interpersonal imbalance to balance when navigating self, others and situations.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). New York, New York: The Guilford Press.

Benjamin, C.L., Puleo, C.M., Settipani, C.A., Brodman, D.M., Edmunds, J.M., Cummings, C.M., & Kendall, P.C. (2011). History of Cognitive-Behavioral therapy in youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 20(2), 179-189.

Bolton, P., Lee, C., Haroz, E.E., Murray, L., Dorsey, S., Robinson, C.,…Bass, J. (2014) A transdiagnostic community-based mental health treatment for comorbid disorders: Development and outcomes of a randomized controlled trial among Burmese refugees in Thailand. PLoS Med 11(11): e1001757. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001757

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Brooke-Sumner, C., Petersen, I., Asher, L., Mall, S., Egbe, C.O. & Lund, C. (2015). Systematic review of feasibility and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia in low and middle income countries. BMC Psychiatry, 15(19). doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0400-6

CASEL. (2014).What is SEL? Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/what-is-sel/

Chibanda, D., Bowers, T., Verhey, R., Rusakaniko, S., Abas, M., Weiss, H., & Araya, R. (2015). The Friendship Bench programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial of a brief psychological intervention for common mental disorders delivered by lay health workers in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 9(21). doi:10.1186/s13033-015-0013-y

Cook, E. P. (2012). Understanding people in context: The ecological perspective in counseling. Alexandria, Virginia: American Counseling Association.

Coyne, R. K., & Cook, E. P. (2004). Ecological counseling: An innovative approach to conceptualizing person-environment interaction. Alexandria, Virginia: American Counseling Association.

Dreher, A., & Gaston, N. (2008). Has globalization increased inequality? Review of International Economics, 16(3), 516-536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9396.2008.00743.x

Durlak, J.A., Domitrovich, C.E., Weissberg, R.P. & Gullota, R.P. (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. The Guilford Press: NY.

Elias, M.J., Parker, S.J., Kash, V.M., Weissberg, R.P., & O,Brien, M.U. (2008). Social and emotional learning, moral education, and character education: A comparative analysis and a view toward convergence. In Nucci, L. P., Narvaez, D., Nucci, L., Narvaez, D., & Krettenauer, T. (Eds.). Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 248-266). doi:10.4324/9780203931431

Erford, B.T. (2010). Orientation to the counseling profession: Advocacy, ethics, and essential professional foundations. Pearson Education: New Jersey.

Feldman, R. S. (2014). Development across the life span (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Field, T., Beeson, E. & Jones, L. (2015). The New ABCs: A Practitioner’s Guide to Neuroscience-Informed Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37(3), 206-220. doi:10.17744/1040-2861-37.3.206

Force, R. T. T. (2005). Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children in Resettlement. National Child Traumatic Stress Network – White Paper II.

Glanz, K. & Bishop, D.B. (2010) The role of behavioural science theory in development and implementation of Public Health Interventions. Annual Review of Public Health 11, 399–418.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. New Jersey:John Wiley and Sons.

Hollon, S.D. & Beck, A.T. Chapter 11: Cognitive and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies. In Hollon, S. D., & Beck, A. T. (Eds.). Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (6th ed., pp. 393-394). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Hutchison, E. (2011). Dimensions of human behavior: Person and environment. (4th ed). Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA

International Labor Office, 2010. A Skilled Workforce for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth. Retrieved from staging.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2010/458291.pdf

Kaul, V. 2012. Globalisation and crisis of cultural identity. Journal of Research in International Business and Management. 2(13), 341-349, Retrieved from http://www.interesjournals.org/JRIBM

Lundy, M. (2008). An integrative model for social work practice: A multi-systemic, multi-theoretical approach families in society. The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(3), 394-406. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3765

Memon, A., Taylor, K., Mohebati, L.M., Sundin, J., Cooper, M., Scanlon, & T. de Visser, R. (2016). Perceived barriers to accessing mental health services among black and minority ethnic (BME) communities: a qualitative study in Southeast England. BMJ Open. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012337

Murray, L.K., Dorsey, S., Haroz, E. Lee, C., Alsiary, M.M., Haydary, A.,…Bolton, P. (2014). A common elements treatment approach for adult mental health problems in low- and middle-income countries. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 21(2), 111-123. doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2013.06.005.

Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (2017). E-source book for behavioral and social sciences research. Retrieved from http://www.esourceresearch.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Public/Glanz_FullChap

Patel, V. (2012). Global mental health: From science to action. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20(1), 6-12.

Patel, V., Choudhary, N., Rehman, A. & Verdeli, H. (2011). Improving access to psychological treatments: Lessons from developing countries. Behavior Research and Therapy, 49(9), 523-528. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2011.06.012

Rehman, A., Malik, A., Sikander, S., Roberts, C. & Creed, F. (2008). Cognitive behaviour therapy-based intervention by community health workers for mothers with depression and their infants in rural Pakistan: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 372. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61400-2

Saxena, S., Thornicroft, G., Knapp, M., & Whitford, H. (2007). Resources for mental health: Scarcity, inequity, and inefficiency. Lancet (370), 878-889. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61239-2

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2016).International migration report 2015 (ST/ESA/SER.A/384). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2015.pdf

Verdali, H. (2016). Global mental health: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(), 761-765. doi:10.1002/jclp.22357

Vernon, A. (2009). Counseling Children & Adolescents. (4th ed.) Love Publishing Company: Denver, CO.

Vimont, M. (2012). Developmental systems theory and youth assets: A primer for the social work researcher and practitioner. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29(6), 499-514. doi:10.1007/s10560-012-0271-3

Watamura, S. E., Phillips, D. A., Morrissey, T. W., McCartney, K., & Bub, K. (2011). Double jeopardy: Poorer social-emotional outcomes for children in the NICHD SECCYD experiencing home and child-care environments that confer risk. Child Development, 82(1), 48-65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01540.x

WEINE, S. M. (2011). Developing preventive mental health interventions for refugee families in resettlement. Family Process, 50, 410–430. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01366.x

White, R. G., Imperiale, M. G., & Perera, E. (2016). The Capabilities Approach: Fostering contexts for enhancing mental health and wellbeing across the globe. Globalization and Health, 12(16), 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12992-016-0150-3

Woods-Jaeger, Kava, Akiba, Lucid & Dorsey. 2017.

World Health Organization. (2004). Prevention of mental disorders: Effective interventions and policy options: Summary report. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43027