Search

BackgroundMotivational 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsParticipants 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.ConclusionsMI 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.

IntroductionDespite carrying a disproportionately high burden of depression, patients in low-income countries lack access to effective care. The collaborative care model (CoCM) has robust evidence for clinical effectiveness in improving mental health outcomes. However, evidence from real-world implementation of CoCM is necessary to inform its expansion in low-resource settings.MethodsWe conducted a 2-year mixed-methods study to assess the implementation and clinical impact of CoCM using the WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme protocols in a primary care clinic in rural Nepal. We used the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) implementation research framework to adapt and study the intervention. To assess implementation factors, we qualitatively studied the impact on providers' behaviour to screen, diagnose and treat mental illness. To assess clinical impact, we followed a cohort of 201 patients with moderate to severe depression and determined the proportion of patients who had a substantial clinical response (defined as ≥50% decrease from baseline scores of Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) to measure depression) by the end of the study period.ResultsProviders experienced improved capability (enhanced self-efficacy and knowledge), greater opportunity (via access to counsellors, psychiatrist, medications and diagnostic tests) and increased motivation (developing positive attitudes towards people with mental illness and seeing patients improve) to provide mental healthcare. We observed substantial clinical response in 99 (49%; 95% CI: 42% to 56%) of the 201 cohort patients, with a median seven point (Q1:-9, Q3:-2) decrease in PHQ-9 scores (p

BackgroundThe Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for mental healthcare, where a consulting psychiatrist supports primary care and behavioral health workers, has the potential to address the large unmet burden of mental illness worldwide. A core component of this model is that the psychiatrist reviews treatment plans for a panel of patients and provides specific clinical recommendations to improve the quality of care. Very few studies have reported data on such recommendations. This study reviews and classifies the recommendations made by consulting psychiatrists in a rural primary care clinic in Nepal.MethodsA chart review was conducted for all patients whose cases were reviewed by the treatment team from January to June 2017, after CoCM had been operational for 6 months. Free text of the recommendations were extracted and two coders analyzed the data using an inductive approach to group and categorize recommendations until the coders achieved consensus. Cumulative frequency of the recommendations are tabulated and discussed in the context of an adapted CoCM in rural Nepal.ResultsThe clinical team discussed 1174 patient encounters (1162 unique patients) during panel reviews throughout the study period. The consultant psychiatrist made 214 recommendations for 192 (16%) patients. The most common recommendations were to revisit the primary mental health diagnosis (16%, n = 34), add or increase focus on counselling and psychosocial support (9%, n = 20), increase the antidepressant dose (9%, n = 20), and discontinue inappropriate medications (6%, n = 12).ConclusionsIn this CoCM study, the majority of treatment plans did not require significant change. The recommendations highlight the challenge that non-specialists face in making an accurate mental health diagnosis, the relative neglect of non-pharmacological interventions, and the risk of inappropriate medications. These results can inform interventions to better support non-specialists in rural areas.

BackgroundTraditional medical education in much of the world has historically relied on passive learning. Although active learning has been in the medical education literature for decades, its incorporation into practice has been inconsistent. We describe and analyze the implementation of a multidisciplinary continuing medical education curriculum in a rural Nepali district hospital, for which a core objective was an organizational shift towards active learning.MethodsThe intervention occurred in a district hospital in remote Nepal, staffed primarily by mid-level providers. Before the intervention, education sessions included traditional didactics. We conducted a mixed-methods needs assessment to determine the content and educational strategies for a revised curriculum. Our goal was to develop an effective, relevant, and acceptable curriculum, which could facilitate active learning. As part of the intervention, physicians acted as both learners and teachers by creating and delivering lectures. Presenters used lecture templates to prioritize clarity, relevance, and audience engagement, including discussion questions and clinical cases. Two 6-month curricular cycles were completed during the study period. Daily lecture evaluations assessed ease of understanding, relevance, clinical practice change, and participation. Periodic lecture audits recorded learner talk-time, the proportion of lecture time during which learners were talking, as a surrogate for active learning. Feedback from evaluation and audit results was provided to presenters, and pre- and post-curriculum knowledge assessment exams were conducted.ResultsLecture audits showed a significant increase in learner talk-time, from 14% at baseline to 30% between months 3-6, maintained at 31% through months 6-12. Lecture evaluations demonstrated satisfaction with the curriculum. Pre- and post-curriculum knowledge assessment scores improved from 50 to 64% (difference 13.3% ± 4.5%, p = 0.006). As an outcome for the measure of organizational change, the curriculum was replicated at an additional clinical site.ConclusionWe demonstrate that active learning can be facilitated by implementing a new educational strategy. Lecture audits proved useful for internal program improvement. The components of the intervention which are transferable to other rural settings include the use of learners as teachers, lecture templates, and provision of immediate feedback. This curricular model could be adapted to similar settings in Nepal, and globally.

The collaborative care model can deliver high-quality mental health care. In rural regions, clinical supervision is conducted remotely rather than in person. The authors implemented a remote teleconsultation model in rural Nepal, where the consulting psychiatrist is over 30 hours away. This column describes strategies for several challenges: poor mental health competencies and high turnover among primary care providers; need for urgent consultations; psychiatrist discomfort with lack of direct patient contact; unreliable electricity, technological tools, documentation, and delivery of treatment recommendations; on-site clinicians' low motivation to accept psychiatrist recommendations; and mismatch between the psychiatrist's recommendations and the site's capacity to implement them.

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.

The collaborative care model is an evidence-based intervention for behavioral and other chronic conditions that has the potential to address the large burden of mental illness globally. Using the World Health Organization Health Systems Framework, the authors present challenges in implementing this model in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and discuss strategies to address these challenges based on experiences with three large-scale programs: an implementation research study in a district-level government hospital in rural Nepal, one clinical trial in 50 primary health centers in rural India, and one study in four diabetes clinics in India. Several strategies can be utilized to address implementation challenges and enhance scalability in LMICs, including mobilizing community resources, engaging in advocacy, and strengthening the overall health care delivery system.

BackgroundMental illnesses are the largest contributors to the global burden of non-communicable diseases. However, there is extremely limited access to high quality, culturally-sensitive, and contextually-appropriate mental healthcare services. This situation persists despite the availability of interventions with proven efficacy to improve patient outcomes. A partnerships network is necessary for successful program adaptation and implementation.Partnerships networkWe describe our partnerships network as a case example that addresses challenges in delivering mental healthcare and which can serve as a model for similar settings. Our perspectives are informed from integrating mental healthcare services within a rural public hospital in Nepal. Our approach includes training and supervising generalist health workers by off-site psychiatrists. This is made possible by complementing the strengths and weaknesses of the various groups involved: the public sector, a non-profit organization that provides general healthcare services and one that specializes in mental health, a community advisory board, academic centers in high- and low-income countries, and bicultural professionals from the diaspora community.ConclusionsWe propose a partnerships model to assist implementation of promising programs to expand access to mental healthcare in low- resource settings. We describe the success and limitations of our current partners in a mental health program in rural Nepal.

Background: As the field of global mental health grows, many psychotherapy trainees will work across cultures in low-resource settings in high-income countries or in low- and middle-income countries. Faculty members and mentors may face several challenges in providing supervision for psychologists in low-resource settings. As such, there is a need to develop best practices for psychotherapy supervision in global mental health., Methods: We describe the common challenges and potential strategies in psychotherapy supervision based on our research, clinical, and academic partnerships between academic institutions, a nonprofit organization, and the Nepali government., Results: The strategies and considerations we have found helpful include focusing on therapies with strong behavioral and interpersonal (rather than emotional or cognitive) components and using locally validated therapies or standard manuals that have been endorsed by the WHO for low-resource settings. Other strategies include providing psychotherapy training for local psychiatrists who may be in supervisory roles and gaining competence in navigating different expectations of social structures and family dynamics., Conclusion: Supervisors face many challenges while supporting trainees and early psychologists in global mental health settings. While ensuring local adaptation, key considerations can be developed into best practices to support psychiatrists, supervisors, and trainees based in low- and middle-income countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.