 As stated by Du Mortier and Coninx:

	Du Mortier and Coninx go on to say that in their experience, patients will likely refuse transport 	to a clinic due to fears about where they are going and their ability to return to their families, 	but the option to receive further treatment is important for the clinic to be viewed as a legitimate 	healthcare option.
Du Mortier and Coninx are also very careful to state that MHUs should not be viewed as an evaluation tool.  MHUs do not provide assessments as to the state of health in an area, but are a treatment intervention ONLY.

      As evidenced by Mortier and Coninx, MHUs are useful tools for providing some basic preventative and (barring any other options) acute health care when access is otherwise unavailable. It is important to reiterate that MHUs should be viewed as a last resort in providing medical services during conflict, not as a first option, which may often be the case when planning for interventions in conflict situations, due to their perceived flexibility.


	The importance of providing mental health care, and screening for IDPs suffering from emotional issues is important for many reasons, one of which is the high rate of prevalence.  In one study on survivors of the Kosovo conflict, it was found that of participants in one study: 
	
While it may seem obvious, survivors of conflict situations often have very specific mental health needs.  Medicines Sans Frontiers (MSF) has integrated mental healthcare into their emergency response module.  Community level workers are “trained to identify and refer cases of mental disorders and epilepsy to the MSF mobile health clinics where the mental health team provided proper diagnosis and treatment.”.  In Mueller's study, referrals to MSF in the Mindanao region of the Philippines were tracked, with 96% of those treated for emotional distress reporting a traumatic event, ( 54% home evacuation, 26% conflict, 5% destruction of property).  The patients were tracked throughout brief psychotherapy sessions, and the results showed a marked improvement (via their scores on a self-reporting questionnaire).
	What are the implications of this study?  Not only is the provision of mental healthcare during conflict situations feasible, but it is proven to be effective.  The WHO has recommended incorporating mental health as one of the screening services offered by MHU, with referrals to trained mental health professionals as seen fit.  It seems that adding mental health screening to MHU tasks has been shown in programming to be an effective tool for the future.  Clearly, immediate conflict response focuses on morbidity and mortality, and rightly so.  The international community, however, has correctly identified mental health as an important and under-appreciated aspect of conflict response and is taking steps to ensure those aspects are addressed moving forward.
	
	In light of the many issues that make health service provision so difficult in IDP settings, it is useful to identify successes amid the confusion. In Understanding effects of armed conflict on health outcomes: the case of Nepal, Bhimsen Devkota and Edward R van Teijlingen find one such case. 