Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review using implementation science frameworks.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Task-sharing is a promising strategy to expand mental healthcare in low-resource settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research on how to best implement task-sharing mental health interventions, however, is hampered by an incomplete understanding of the barriers and facilitators to their implementation. This review aims to systematically identify implementation barriers and facilitators in evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions using an implementation science lens, organizing factors across a novel, integrated implementation science framework.

Methods

PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Embase were used to identify English-language, peer-reviewed studies using search terms for three categories: "mental health," "task-sharing," and "LMIC." Articles were included if they: focused on mental disorders as the main outcome(s); included a task-sharing intervention using or based on an evidence-based practice; were implemented in an LMIC setting; and included assessment or data-supported analysis of barriers and facilitators. An initial conceptual model and coding framework derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework was developed and iteratively refined to create an integrated conceptual framework, the Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing Mental Health Interventions (BeFITS-MH), which specifies 37 constructs across eight domains: (I) client characteristics, (II) provider characteristics, (III) family and community factors, (IV) organizational characteristics, (V) societal factors, (VI) mental health system factors, (VII) intervention characteristics, and (VIII) stigma.

Results

Of the 26,935 articles screened (title and abstract), 192 articles underwent full-text review, yielding 37 articles representing 28 unique intervention studies that met the inclusion criteria. The most prevalent facilitators occur in domains that are more amenable to adaptation (i.e., the intervention and provider characteristics domains), while salient barriers occur in domains that are more challenging to modulate or intervene on-these include constructs in the client characteristics as well as the broader societal and structural levels of influence (i.e., the organizational, mental health system domains). Other notable trends include constructs in the family and community domains occurring as barriers and as facilitators roughly equally, and stigma constructs acting exclusively as barriers.

Conclusions

Using the BeFITS-MH model we developed based on implementation science frameworks, this systematic review provides a comprehensive identification and organization of barriers and facilitators to evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions in LMICs. These findings have important implications for ongoing and future implementation of this critically needed intervention strategy, including the promise of leveraging task-sharing intervention characteristics as sites of continued innovation, the importance of but relative lack of engagement with constructs in macro-level domains (e.g., organizational characteristics, stigma), and the need for more delineation of strategies for task-sharing mental health interventions that researchers and implementers can employ to enhance implementation in and across levels.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42020161357.

SUBMITTER: Le PD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8756725 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOral rehydration therapy (ORT) is an effective and cheap treatment for diarrheal disease; globally, one of the leading causes of death in children under five. The World Health Organization launched a global campaign to improve ORT coverage in 1978, with activities such as educational campaigns, training health workers and the creation of designate programming. Despite these efforts, ORT coverage remains relatively low. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of oral rehydration therapy in low and middle-income countries.MethodsA comprehensive search strategy comprised of relevant subject headings and keywords was executed in 5 databases including OVID Medline, OVID Embase, OVID HealthStar, Web of Science and Scopus. Eligible studies underwent quality assessment, and a directed content analysis approach to data extraction was conducted and aligned to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to facilitate narrative synthesis.ResultsThe search identified 1570 citations and following removal of duplicates as well as screening according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, 55 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. Twenty-three countries were represented in this review, with India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa having the most representation of available studies. Study dates ranged from 1981 to 2020. Overarching thematic areas spanning the barriers and facilitators that were identified included: availability and accessibility, knowledge, partnership engagement, and design and acceptability.ConclusionA systematic review of studies on implementation of ORT in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) highlights key activities that facilitate the development of successful implementation that include: (1) availability and accessibility of ORT, (2) awareness and education among communities, (3) strong partnership engagement strategies, and (4) adaptable design to enhance acceptability. The barriers and facilitators identified under the CIFR domains can be used to build knowledge on how to adapt ORT to national and local settings and contribute to a better understanding on the implementation and use of ORT in LMICs. The prospects for scaling and sustaining ORT (after years of low use) will increase if implementation research informs local applications, and implementers engage appropriate stakeholders and test assumptions around localized theories of change from interventions to expected outcomes.RegistrationA protocol for this systematic review was developed and uploaded onto the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews database (Registration number: CRD420201695).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). RESULTS:A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. CONCLUSION:Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Community-based health insurance (CBHI) has evolved as an alternative health financing mechanism to out of pocket payments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in areas where government or employer-based health insurance is minimal. This systematic review aimed to assess the barriers and facilitators to implementation, uptake and sustainability of CHBI schemes in LMICs. METHODS:We searched six electronic databases and grey literature. We included both quantitative and qualitative studies written in English language and published after year 1992. Two reviewers worked in duplicate and independently to complete study selection, data abstraction, and assessment of methodological features. We synthesized the findings based on thematic analysis and categorized according to the ecological model into individual, interpersonal, community and systems levels. RESULTS:Of 15,510 citations, 51 met the eligibility criteria. Individual factors included awareness and understanding of the concept of CBHI, trust in scheme and scheme managers, perceived service quality, and demographic characteristics, which influenced enrollment and sustainability. Interpersonal factors such as household dynamics, other family members enrolled in the scheme, and social solidarity influenced enrollment and renewal of membership. Community-level factors such as culture and community involvement in scheme development influenced enrollment and sustainability of scheme. Systems-level factors encompassed governance, financial and delivery arrangement. Government involvement, accountability of scheme management, and strong policymaker-implementer relation facilitated implementation and sustainability of scheme. Packages that covered outpatient and inpatient care and those tailored to community needs contributed to increased enrollment. Amount and timing of premium collection was reported to negatively influence enrollment while factors reported as threats to sustainability included facility bankruptcy, operating on small budgets, rising healthcare costs, small risk pool, irregular contributions, and overutilization of services. At the delivery level, accessibility of facilities, facility environment, and health personnel influenced enrollment, service utilization and dropout rates. CONCLUSION:There are a multitude of interrelated factors at the individual, interpersonal, community and systems levels that drive the implementation, uptake and sustainability of CBHI schemes. We discuss the implications of the findings at the policy and research level. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID?=? CRD42015019812 ).

Project description:High-quality obstetric delivery in a health facility reduces maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. This systematic review synthesizes qualitative evidence related to the facilitators and barriers to delivering at health facilities in low- and middle-income countries. We aim to provide a useful framework for better understanding how various factors influence the decision-making process and the ultimate location of delivery at a facility or elsewhere. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL and gray literature databases. Study quality was evaluated using the CASP checklist. The confidence in the findings was assessed using the CERQual method. Thirty-four studies from 17 countries were included. Findings were organized under four broad themes: (1) perceptions of pregnancy and childbirth; (2) influence of sociocultural context and care experiences; (3) resource availability and access; (4) perceptions of quality of care. Key barriers to facility-based delivery include traditional and familial influences, distance to the facility, cost of delivery, and low perceived quality of care and fear of discrimination during facility-based delivery. The emphasis placed on increasing facility-based deliveries by public health entities has led women and their families to believe that childbirth has become medicalized and dehumanized. When faced with the prospect of facility birth, women in low- and middle-income countries may fear various undesirable procedures, and may prefer to deliver at home with a traditional birth attendant. Given the abundant reports of disrespectful and abusive obstetric care highlighted by this synthesis, future research should focus on achieving respectful, non-abusive, and high-quality obstetric care for all women. Funding for this project was provided by The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization.

Project description:BackgroundLow-to-middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non-communicable and communicable diseases. Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice.AimTo identify and categorize barriers and strategies to evidence implementation in LMICs from published evidence implementation studies.MethodsA descriptive analysis of key characteristics of evidence implementation projects completed as part of a 6-month, multi-phase, intensive evidence-based clinical fellowship program, conducted in LMICs and published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was undertaken. Barriers were identified and categorized to the Donabedian dimensions of care (structure, process, and outcome), and strategies were mapped to the Cochrane effective practice and organization of care taxonomy.ResultsA total of 60 implementation projects reporting 58 evidence-based clinical audit topics from LMICs were published between 2010 and 2018. The projects included diverse populations and were predominantly conducted in tertiary care settings. A total of 279 barriers to implementation were identified. The most frequently identified groupings of barriers were process-related and associated predominantly with staff knowledge. A total of 565 strategies were used across all projects, with every project incorporating more than one strategy to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice; most strategies were categorized as educational meetings for healthcare workers.Linking evidence to actionContext-specific strategies are required for successful evidence implementation in LMICs, and a number of common barriers can be addressed using locally available, low-cost resources. Education for healthcare workers in LMICs is an effective awareness-raising, workplace culture, and practice-transforming strategy for evidence implementation.

Project description:BackgroundTask-sharing interventions using non-physician health-care workers might be a potential diabetes management strategy in health systems that are constrained by physician shortages, such as those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of task-sharing intervention strategies for managing type 2 diabetes in LMICs. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from database inception to Sept 25, 2019, for studies that were randomised control trials or cluster randomised trials with task-shifted or task-shared interventions delivered to adults (≥18 years) by non-physician health workers versus usual care, done in LMICs with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting blood sugar (FBS) as outcome measures. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects model meta-analysis was used to estimate the population average pooled mean difference for HbA1c and FBS with 95% CIs. Our study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018081015).FindingsWe found 4213 studies from the literature search, of which 46 (1·1%) were eligible for the narrative synthesis, including a total of 16 973 participants. 16 of these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to high risk of bias. 24 studies with a total of 5345 participants were included in the meta-analysis of HbA1c and 18 studies with a total of 3287 participants for FBS. Interventions led to an average reduction in HbA1c when tasks were delivered by nurses (averaged pooled mean difference -0·54% [95% CI -0·89 to -0·18]; I2=80%) and pharmacists (-0·91% [-1·15 to -0·68]; I2=58%), but not when they were delivered by dietitians (-0·50% [-1·10 to 0·09]; I2=54%) or community health workers (0·05% [0·03 to 0·07]; I2=0%). A reduction in average FBS was also observed when interventions were delivered by pharmacists (average pooled mean difference -36·26 mg/dL [-52·60 to -19·92]; I2=78%) but not nurses (-7·46 mg/dL [-18·44 to 3·52]; I2=79%) or community health workers (-5·41 [-12·74 to 1·92]; I2=71%). Only one study reported on FBS when tasks were delivered by dietitians, with a mean difference of -35·00 mg/dL (-65·96 to -4·04).InterpretationTask sharing interventions with non-physician healthcare workers show moderate effectiveness in diabetes management in LMIC settings. Although relatively high heterogeneity limits the interpretation of the overall findings, interventions led by pharmacists and nurses in LMICs with relatively high physician density are effective strategies in the management of diabetes.FundingWellcome Trust-Department of Biotechnology India Alliance.

Project description:On a global scale, implementation science has developed considerably as a discipline in recent years. In German-speaking countries, the field has been gaining significance as well, but respective efforts in building capacity and advancing the research infrastructure are still rare. The present study investigates barriers and facilitators for conducting implementation science in German-speaking countries with the goal of formulating recommendations for creating a more supportive research infrastructure. We conducted an interview study with nine well-established implementation researchers affiliated with universities in Austria, Germany, or Switzerland. The interviews were held via Zoom or phone in November and December 2020, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Barriers that relate to characteristics of the discipline were difficulties in building a common understanding of the field and the complexity of implementation research projects. Although supportive scientific networks were important facilitators, interviewees mentioned challenges in connecting with likeminded researchers. A further barrier was the lack of opportunities for education and training in implementation science, especially in the German language. Also, participants reported a missing readiness in academia for establishing implementation science that should be addressed by advocacy of the discipline toward academic decision makers. Moreover, since most national funding agencies prioritize basic research over applied research, some interviewees named flexibility in handling research funds as a facilitator for implementation research. The results inform an agenda for promoting implementation science in German-speaking countries and can be beneficial to other countries that are currently advancing their implementation research capacity and infrastructure.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00046-3.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Most low and middle income countries (LMICs) are currently not on track to reach the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). One way to accelerate progress would be through the large-scale implementation of evidence-based health tools and interventions. This study aimed to: (a) explore the barriers that have impeded such scale-up in LMICs, and (b) lay out an "implementation research agenda"--a series of key research questions that need to be addressed in order to help overcome such barriers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with fourteen key informants, all of whom are academic leaders in the field of implementation science, who were purposively selected for their expertise in scaling up in LMICs. Interviews were transcribed by hand and manually coded to look for emerging themes related to the two study aims. Barriers to scaling up, and unanswered research questions, were organized into six categories, representing different components of the scaling up process: attributes of the intervention; attributes of the implementers; scale-up approach; attributes of the adopting community; socio-political, fiscal, and cultural context; and research context. RESULTS: Factors impeding the success of scale-up that emerged from the key informant interviews, and which are areas for future investigation, include: complexity of the intervention and lack of technical consensus; limited human resource, leadership, management, and health systems capacity; poor application of proven diffusion techniques; lack of engagement of local implementers and of the adopting community; and inadequate integration of research into scale-up efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Key steps in expanding the evidence base on implementation in LMICs include studying how to: simplify interventions; train "scale-up leaders" and health workers dedicated to scale-up; reach and engage communities; match the best delivery strategy to the specific health problem and context; and raise the low profile of implementation science.

Project description:BackgroundThe maternal near-miss cases review (NMCR), a type of clinical audit, proved to be effective in improving quality of care and decreasing maternal mortality in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). However, challenges in its implementation have been described.ObjectivesSynthesising the evidence on facilitators and barriers to the effective implementation of NMCR in LMICs.DesignSystematic review of qualitative studies.Data sourcesMEDLINE, LILACS, Global Health Library, SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, Cochrane library and Embase were searched in December 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesQualitative studies exploring facilitators and/or barriers of implementing NMCR in LMIC were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data, performed thematic analysis and assessed risk of bias.ResultsOut of 25?361 papers retrieved, 9 studies from Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cote D'Ivoire, Ghana, Malawi, Morocco, Tanzania, Uganda could be included in the review. The most frequently reported barriers to NMCR implementation were the following: absence of national guidelines and local protocols; insufficient training on how to perform the audit; lack of leadership, coordination, monitoring and supervision; lack of resources and work overload; fear of blame and punishment; poor knowledge of evidenced-based medicine; hierarchical differences among staff and poor understating of the benefits of the NMCR. Major facilitators to NMCR implementation included: good leadership and coordination; training of all key staff; a good cultural environment; clear staff's perception on the benefits of conducting audit; patient empowerment and the availability of external support.ConclusionsIn planning the NMCR implementation in LMICs, policy-makers should consider actions to prevent and mitigate common challenges to successful NMCR implementation. Future studies should aim at documenting facilitators and barriers to NMCR outside the African Region.