Dataset Information

Development of the mental health cultural adaptation and contextualization for implementation (mhCACI) procedure: a systematic framework to prepare evidence-based psychological interventions for scaling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Because of the high burden of untreated mental illness in humanitarian settings and low- and middle-income countries, scaling-up effective psychological interventions require a cultural adaptation process that is feasible and acceptable. Our adaptation process incorporates changes into both content and implementation strategies, with a focus on local understandings of distress and treatment mechanisms of action.

Methods

Building upon the ecological validity model, we developed a 10-step process, the mental health Cultural Adaptation and Contextualization for Implementation (mhCACI) procedure, and piloted this approach in Nepal for Group Problem Management Plus (PM+), a task-sharing intervention, proven effective for adults with psychological distress in low-resource settings. Detailed documentation tools were used to ensure rigor and transparency during the adaptation process.

Findings

The mhCACI is a 10-step process: (1) identify mechanisms of action, (2) conduct a literature desk review for the culture and context, (3) conduct a training-of-trainers, (4) translate intervention materials, (5) conduct an expert read-through of the materials, (6) qualitative assessment of intervention population and site, (7) conduct practice rounds, (8) conduct an adaptation workshop with experts and implementers, (9) pilot test the training, supervision, and implementation, and (10) review through process evaluation. For Group PM+, key adaptations were harmonizing the mechanisms of action with cultural models of 'tension'; modification of recruitment procedures to assure fit; and development of a skills checklist.

Conclusion

A 10-step mhCACI process could feasibly be implemented in a humanitarian setting to rapidly prepare a psychological intervention for widespread implementation.

SUBMITTER: Sangraula M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the widely recognised importance of cultural adaptation to increase the effectiveness of psychological interventions, there is little guidance on its process. Developed based on existing theory, we applied a four-step process to culturally adapt a low-intensity psychological intervention for use in humanitarian settings.MethodsThe four-step process was applied to adapt a WHO low-intensity psychological intervention (i.e. Problem Management Plus, or PM+) for use with displaced Venezuelans and Colombians in Colombia. First, a rapid desk review was used as an (1) information gathering tool to identify local population characteristics. Next, the results were taken forward for the (2) formulation of adaptation hypotheses, whereby PM+ protocols were screened to identify components for adaptation, drawing on the Ecological Validity Model. Third, the elements flagged for adaptation were taken forward for (3) local consultation to firstly, verify the components identified for adaptation, to identify other areas in need of adaptation, and thirdly, to adapt the intervention protocols. Finally, the adapted intervention protocols were reviewed through (4) external evaluations with local experts.ResultsThe information gathering phase yielded key information on the socioeconomic aspects of the groups targeted for intervention, the availability and need for mental health and psychosocial support, and existing barriers to accessing care. The adaptation hypotheses phase further identified the need for clearer explanations of key concepts, the need for sensitive topics to match local attitudes (e.g., domestic violence, thoughts of suicide), and the identification of culturally appropriate social supports. Building on these first two phases, local consultation subsequently resulted in revised PM+ protocols. The adapted protocols differed from the original format in their focus on the problems unique to these population groups, the way that psychological distress is expressed in this context, and the inclusion of locally available supports. The results of the external evaluation supported the adaptations made to the protocols.ConclusionThe proposed four-step process offers a useful guide for how to adapt low-intensity psychological intervention within humanitarian settings. Despite some limitations, we show that even when time and resources are scarce it is possible and necessary to culturally adapt psychological interventions. We invite further testing, replication, and improvements to this methodology.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation of evidence-based practices often requires tailoring implementation strategies to local contextual factors, including available resources, expertise, and cultural norms. Using an exemplar case, we describe how health systems engineering methods can be used to understand system-level variation that must be accounted for prior to broad implementation.MethodsWithin the context of a single-center quality improvement activity, a multi-disciplinary stakeholder team used health systems engineering methods to describe how pre-endoscopy antithrombotic management was executed, and implemented a redesigned process to improve clinical care. The research team then conducted multiple stakeholder focus groups at four different health-care systems to describe and compare current processes for pre-endoscopy antithrombotic medication management. Detailed work flow maps for each health-care system were developed, analyzed, and integrated to develop an overarching current work flow map, identify key process steps, and describe areas of process variation.ResultsFive key process steps were identified across the four health systems: (1) place an endoscopy order, (2) screen for antithrombotic use, (3) coordinate medication management, (4) instruct the patient, and (5) confirm appropriate medication management before procedure. Across health systems, we found a high degree of variation in each step (e.g., who performed, use of technology, systematic vs. ad hoc process). This variation was influenced by two key system-level contextual factors: (1) degree of health system integration and (2) role and training level of available staff. These key steps, areas of variation, and contextual factors were integrated into an assessment tool designed to facilitate tailoring of a future implementation and dissemination strategy.ConclusionsTools from health systems engineering can be used to identify key work flow process steps, variations in how those steps are executed, and influential contextual factors. This process and the associated assessment tool may facilitate broader implementation tailoring.

Project description:To facilitate decision-making capacity between options of care under real-life service conditions, clinical trials must be pragmatic to evaluate mobile health (mHealth) interventions under the variable conditions of health care settings with a wide range of participants. The mHealth interventions require changes in the behavior of patients and providers, creating considerable complexity and ambiguity related to causal chains. Process evaluations of the implementation are necessary to shed light on the range of unanticipated effects an intervention may have, what the active ingredients in everyday practice are, how they exert their effect, and how these may vary among recipients or between sites.Building on the CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth) statement and participatory evaluation theory, we present a framework for the process evaluations for mHealth interventions in multiple cultural settings. We also describe the application of this evaluation framework to the implementation of DREAM-GLOBAL (Diagnosing hypertension-Engaging Action and Management in Getting Lower BP in Indigenous and LMIC [low- and middle-income countries]), a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT), and mHealth intervention designed to improve hypertension management in low-resource environments. We describe the evaluation questions and the data collection processes developed by us.Our literature review revealed that there is a significant knowledge gap related to the development of a process evaluation framework for mHealth interventions. We used community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods and formative research data to develop a process evaluation framework nested within a pragmatic RCT.Four human organizational levels of participants impacted by the mHealth intervention were identified that included patients, providers, community and organizations actors, and health systems and settings. These four levels represent evaluation domains and became the core focus of the evaluation. In addition, primary implementation themes to explore in each of the domains were identified as follows: (1) the major active components of the intervention, (2) technology of the intervention, (3) cultural congruence, (4) task shifting, and (5) unintended consequences. Using the four organizational domains and their interaction with primary implementation themes, we developed detailed evaluation research questions and identified the data or information sources to best answer our questions.Using DREAM-GLOBAL to illustrate our approach, we succeeded in developing an uncomplicated process evaluation framework for mHealth interventions that provide key information to stakeholders, which can optimize implementation of a pragmatic trial as well as inform scale up. The human organizational level domains used to focus the primary implementation themes in the DREAM-GLOBAL process evaluation framework are sufficiently supported in our research, and the literature and can serve as a valuable tool for other mHealth process evaluations.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02111226; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02111226 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oxfHXege).

Project description:One of the major debates in implementation research turns around fidelity and adaptation. Fidelity is the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended by its developers. It is meant to ensure that the intervention maintains its intended effects. Adaptation is the process of implementers or users bringing changes to the original design of an intervention. Depending on the nature of the modifications brought, adaptation could either be potentially positive or could carry the risk of threatening the theoretical basis of the intervention, resulting in a negative effect on expected outcomes. Adaptive interventions are those for which adaptation is allowed or even encouraged. Classical fidelity dimensions and conceptual frameworks do not address the issue of how to adapt an intervention while still maintaining its effectiveness.We support the idea that fidelity and adaptation co-exist and that adaptations can impact either positively or negatively on the intervention's effectiveness. For adaptive interventions, research should answer the question how an adequate fidelity-adaptation balance can be reached. One way to address this issue is by looking systematically at the aspects of an intervention that are being adapted. We conducted fidelity research on the implementation of an empowerment strategy for dengue prevention in Cuba. In view of the adaptive nature of the strategy, we anticipated that the classical fidelity dimensions would be of limited use for assessing adaptations. The typology we used in the assessment-implemented, not-implemented, modified, or added components of the strategy-also had limitations. It did not allow us to answer the question which of the modifications introduced in the strategy contributed to or distracted from outcomes. We confronted our empirical research with existing literature on fidelity, and as a result, considered that the framework for implementation fidelity proposed by Carroll et al. in 2007 could potentially meet our concerns. We propose modifications to the framework to assess both fidelity and adaptation. The modified Carroll et al.'s framework we propose may permit a comprehensive assessment of the implementation fidelity-adaptation balance required when implementing adaptive interventions, but more empirical research is needed to validate it.