Search

Abstract Global health reciprocal innovation emphasizes the movement of technologies or interventions between high- and low-income countries to address a shared public health problem, in contrast to unidirectional models of “development aid” or “reverse innovation”. Evidence-based interventions are frequently adapted from the setting in which they were developed and applied in a new setting, presenting an opportunity for learning and partnership across high- and low-income contexts. However, few clear procedures exist to guide researchers and implementers on how to incorporate equitable and learning-oriented approaches into intervention adaptation across settings. We integrated theories from pedagogy, implementation science, and public health with examples from experience adapting behavioral health interventions across diverse settings to develop a procedure for a bidirectional, equitable process of intervention adaptation across high- and low-income contexts. The Mutual capacity building model for adaptation (MCB-MA) is made up of seven steps: 1) Exploring: A dialogue about the scope of the proposed adaptation and situational appraisal in the new setting; 2) Developing a shared vision: Agreeing on common goals for the adaptation; 3) Formalizing: Developing agreements around resource and data sharing; 4) Sharing complementary expertise: Group originating the intervention supporting the adapting group to learn about the intervention and develop adaptations, while gleaning new strategies for intervention implementation from the adapting group; 5) Reciprocal training: Originating and adapting groups collaborate to train the individuals who will be implementing the adapted intervention; 6) Mutual feedback: Originating and adapting groups share data and feedback on the outcomes of the adapted intervention and lessons learned; and 7) Consideration of next steps: Discuss future collaborations. This evidence-informed procedure may provide researchers with specific actions to approach the often ambiguous and challenging task of equitable partnership building. These steps can be used alongside existing intervention adaptation models, which guide the adaptation of the intervention itself.

Migrants and refugees face elevated risks for mental health problems but have limited access to services. This study compared two strategies for training and supervising nonspecialists to deliver a scalable psychological intervention, Group Problem Management Plus (gPM+), in northern Colombia. Adult women who reported elevated psychological distress and functional impairment were randomized to receive gPM+ delivered by nonspecialists who received training and supervision by: 1) a psychologist (specialized technical support); or 2) a nonspecialist who had been trained as a trainer/supervisor (nonspecialized technical support). We examined effectiveness and implementation outcomes using a mixed-methods approach. Thirteen nonspecialists were trained as gPM+ facilitators and three were trained-as-trainers. We enrolled 128 women to participate in gPM+ across the two conditions. Intervention attendance was higher in the specialized technical support condition. The nonspecialized technical support condition demonstrated higher fidelity to gPM+ and lower cost of implementation. Other indicators of effectiveness, adoption and implementation were comparable between the two implementation strategies. These results suggest it is feasible to implement mental health interventions, like gPM+, using lower-resource, community-embedded task sharing models, while maintaining safety and fidelity. Further evidence from fully powered trials is needed to make definitive conclusions about the relative cost of these implementation strategies.

Abstract Background Stigma is significantly impacted by cultural and contextual value systems. People with mental health conditions frequently have to deal with the condition itself and the associated stigma and discrimination. Contextual understanding is essential to design measures and interventions. Objective This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of people with mental health conditions, their families and key stakeholders. Method A qualitative method used to understand mental health-related stigma and its local contexts. Sixteen participants, including service users, caregivers, service providers and health service administrators, were interviewed. Result People with mental health conditions and their caregivers experienced various forms of stigmatization which is linked to attributions about the causality of the illness, overt manifestations of mental health condition leading to easy identification and functional impairments that adversely affect participation. Social contact, lived experiences sharing and training of service providers are relevant intervention strategy to address stigma. Implication Stigma and exclusion are prominent in the experiences of people with mental health conditions and their caregivers in this rural Ethiopian setting. Measurement of stigma and the development of interventions should consider how stigma is socially constructed. Anti-stigma interventions need to be implemented alongside expanded local access to mental healthcare.

BackgroundThe International Study of Discrimination and Stigma Outcomes (INDIGO) Partnership is a multi-country international research program in seven sites across five low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Africa and Asia to develop, contextually adapt mental health stigma reduction interventions and pilot these among a variety of target populations. The aim of this paper is to report on the process of culturally adapting these interventions in India using an established framework.MethodsAs part of this larger program, we have contextualized and implemented these interventions from March 2022 to August 2023 in a site in north India. The Ecological Validity Model (EVM) was used to guide the adaptation and contextualization process comprising eight dimensions.FindingsSix dimensions of the Ecological Validity Model were adapted, namely language, persons, metaphors, content, methods, and context; and two dimensions, namely concepts and goals, were retained.ConclusionStigma reduction strategies with varied target groups, based on culturally appropriate adaptations, are more likely to be acceptable to the stakeholders involved in the intervention, and to be effective in terms of the program impact.

Abstract Background The ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors (ENACT) tool measures a set of therapeutic competencies required for the effective psychological intervention, including delivery by non-specialists. This paper describes the systematic adaptation of the ENACT for the South African (SA) context and presents the tool's initial psychometric properties. Methods We employed a four-step process: (1) Item generation: 204 therapeutic factors were generated by SA psychologists and drawn from the original ENACT as potential items; (2) Item relevance: SA therapists identified 96 items that were thematically coded according to their relationship to one another and were assigned to six domains; (3) Item utility: The ENACT-SA scale was piloted by rating recordings of psychological therapy sessions and stakeholder input; and (4) Psychometric properties: Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the final 12-item ENACT-SA were explored using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation co-efficient (ICC) for both clinical psychologists and registered counsellors. Results Although the original ENACT provided a framework for developing a tool for use in SA, several modifications were made to improve the applicability of the tool for the SA context, and optimise its adaptability other contexts. The adapted 12-item tool's internal consistency was good, while the inter-rater reliability was acceptable for both clinical psychologists and registered counsellors. Conclusion The ENACT-SA is a reliable tool to assess common factors in psychological treatments. It is recommended that the tool be used in conjunction with assessment protocols and treatment-specific competency measures to fully assess implementation fidelity and potential mechanisms of therapeutic change.

There is a growing recognition of the benefits of collaborating with people with lived experience (PWLE) of mental health conditions in mental health research and implementation of services. Such collaboration has been effective in reducing mental health stigma and improving the quality of mental health care. Here, we describe using PhotoVoice as a collaborative method in which PWLE use visual narratives to tell their recovery stories for promoting social contact, debunking myths and reducing stigma. First, we outline the framework of this collaboration, drawing on theories from medical anthropology and social psychology and focusing on reducing mental health stigma among primary healthcare workers. Then, we describe the process using our learnings from implementing PhotoVoice in Nepal, Ethiopia and Uganda. We highlight collaboration in five key steps with associated considerations: (1) identifying PWLE for collaboration; (2) training in photography, distress management and presentation skills; (3) developing a photographic recovery story; (4) training healthcare workers using the PhotoVoice narratives; and (5) ongoing support of mental health systems strengthening in collaboration with PWLE. Then, we critically reflect on the process, highlighting the benefits and challenges to the participants and researchers, thereby paving the way for expanding collaborations with PWLE using the PhotoVoice method.

Abstract Background Motivational Interviewing (MI) has a robust evidence base in facilitating behavior change for several health conditions. MI focuses on the individual and assumes patient autonomy. Cross-cultural adaptation can face several challenges in settings where individualism and autonomy may not be as prominent. Sociocultural factors such as gender, class, caste hinder individual decision-making. Key informant perspectives are an essential aspect of cross-cultural adaptation of new interventions. Here, we share our experience of translating and adapting MI concepts to the local language and culture in rural Nepal, where families and communities play a central role in influencing a person’s behaviors. Methods We developed, translated, field-tested, and adapted a Nepali MI training module with key informants to generate insights on adapting MI for the first time in this cultural setting. Key informants were five Nepali nurses who supervise community health workers. We used structured observation notes to describe challenges and experiences in cross-cultural adaptation. We conducted this study as part of a larger study on using MI to improve adherence to HIV treatment. Results Participants viewed MI as an effective intervention with the potential to assist patients poorly engaged in care. Regarding patient autonomy, they initially shared examples of family members unsuccessfully dictating patient behavior change. These discussions led to consensus that every time the family members restrict patient's autonomy, the patient complies temporarily but then resumes their unhealthy behavior. In addition, participants highlighted that even when a patient is motivated to change (e.g., return for follow-up), their family members may not “allow” it. Discussion led to suggestions that health workers may need to conduct MI separately with patients and family members to understand everyone’s motivations and align those with the patient’s needs. Conclusions MI carries several cultural assumptions, particularly around individual freedom and autonomy. MI adaptation thus faces challenges in cultures where such assumptions may not hold. However, cross-cultural adaptation with key informant perspectives can lead to creative strategies that recognize both the patient’s autonomy and their role as a member of a complex social fabric to facilitate behavior change.

Background Distal humerus fractures not amenable to open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) present a unique dilemma, especially for patients that weight bear through assistive devices. The one accepted operative treatment for irreparable distal humerus fractures is total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). However, TEA commonly requires lifetime weight lifting restrictions and has limited long term results. Elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) represents an alternative treatment modality. This study reviews patients treated with EHA permitted to weight bear postoperatively. Methods Twelve patients underwent EHA for comminuted distal humerus fractures deemed non-reconstructable by ORIF. Patient survey data was collected retrospectively. All patients were allowed to weight bear as tolerated through the operative extremity. Outcome measures included Patient rated elbow evaluation (PREE), Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), and whether revision surgery was required. Results The average MEPS score was 76.1 indicating fair outcomes and the average PREE score was 41. One patient required revision. Average follow up was 44.1 months. Three patients required an assistive device prior to injury. Discussion EHA serves as a viable option for non-reconstructable distal humerus fractures. EHA does not require a weight lifting restriction, which is a benefit over TEA. Overall, patients reported preserved functional capabilities but did report moderate pain. EHA demonstrated durability, although one patient required revision. Conclusion With growing interest in use of EHA, further studies are required to evaluate EHA as a superior treatment for patients with nonreconstructable traumatic distal humerus fractures; however, this study does support use in elderly patients with intermediate follow up.

Abstract Although there are guidelines for transcultural adaptation and validation of psychometric tools, similar resources do not exist for translation of diagnostic and symptom terminology used by health professionals to communicate with one another, their patients, and the public. The issue of translation is particularly salient when working with underserved, non-English speaking populations in high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries. As clinicians, researchers, and educators working in cross-cultural settings, we present four recommendations to avoid common pitfalls in these settings. We demonstrate the need for: (1) harmonization of terminology among clinicians, educators of health professionals, and health policymakers; (2) distinction in terminology used among health professionals and that used for communication with patients, families, and the lay public; (3) linkage of symptom assessment with functional assessment; and (4) establishment of a culture of evaluating communication and terminology for continued improvement.