Implementation strategy in collaboration with people with lived experience of mental illness to reduce stigma among primary care providers in Nepal (RESHAPE): protocol for a type 3 hybrid implementation effectiveness cluster randomized controlled trial

Methods for community-engaged data collection and analysis in implementation research

BACKGROUND

Community engagement is widely recognized as critical to successful and equitable implementation of evidence-based practices, programs, and policies. However, there are no clear guidelines for community involvement in data collection and analysis in implementation research.

METHODS

We describe three specific methods for engaging community members in data collection and analysis: concept mapping, rapid ethnographic assessment, and Photovoice. Common elements are identified from a case study of each method: 1) selection and adaptation of evidence-based strategies for improving adolescent HPV vaccine initiation rates in disadvantaged communities, 2) strategies for implementing medication for opioid use disorders among low-income Medicaid enrollees during natural disasters, and 3) interventions to improve the physical health of adults with severe mental illness living in supportive housing.

RESULTS

In all three cases, community members assisted in participant recruitment, provided data, and validated preliminary findings created by researchers. In the Photovoice case study, community members participated in both data collection and analysis, while in the concept mapping, community members also participated in the initial phase of organizing and prioritizing evidence-based strategies during the data analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Community involvement in implementation research data collection and analysis contributes to greater engagement and empowerment of community members and validation of study findings. Use of methods that exhibit both scientific rigor and community relevance of implementation research also contributes to greater community investment in successful implementation outcomes. Nevertheless, the case studies point to the importance and efficiency of the division of labor embedded in community-engaged implementation research. Building capacity for community members to assume greater roles in obtaining and organizing data for preliminary analysis prior to interpretation is recommended.

Feasibility and Applicability of Implementing the Framework for Comprehensive Understanding of Structural Stigma in Mental Healthcare Systems: A Case Example of Nepal

INTRODUCTION

Mental health-related structural stigma is a multifaceted issue that significantly impacts access to quality mental healthcare, particularly in low-resource settings like Nepal. Therefore, there is a clear need to understand the complexities and identify gaps for targeted interventions through evaluations of various dimensions of structural stigma within healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and applicability of a mental health-related structural stigma measurement framework through its implementation in Nepal's healthcare system.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving data mapping, key informant interviews and rating exercises with diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, health workers and people with lived experience (PWLEs). A visual analogue scale or Red/Amber/Green (RAG) rating scale was used to rate each indicator within the framework for the level of structural stigma based on the mapped information and their experiences. Data collection was carried out from May to June 2024.

RESULTS

Twenty key informants were interviewed for this exercise. Most indicators within the framework were endorsed as yellow, followed by red by participants referring to mid to high levels of structural stigma within the healthcare system. The findings also revealed that the stakeholders perceived the framework as acceptable and applicable for measuring mental health-related structural stigma in the healthcare system. However, challenges were noted regarding the clarity of some indicators, limitations of the three-coloured visual analogue rating and the need for comparator conditions.

CONCLUSION

The study underscores the measurement framework's value as a tool for identifying and addressing structural stigma in a mental healthcare system in a low-resource setting. Stakeholder engagement and contextual adaptation are crucial for its successful implementation. The insights gained can inform structural reforms and improve mental health service delivery, ultimately promoting greater equity and access for PWLEs.

PATIENT PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This framework being assessed in this study (FOCUS-MHS) was developed through extensive consultation with People with Lived Experiences (PWLEs) in Nepal and globally with the Global Mental Health Peer Network along with other stakeholders. Identification of documents, policies and studies, along with qualitative information mapped within the indicators, was informed by PWLEs involved in local study sites and by policymakers and health administrators. The reflections of the study participants-PWLEs, health administrators and policymakers, have guided further refinement of the framework for future use.

Development of a mental health-related structural stigma measurement framework in the healthcare system setting: A modified Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

There is a worldwide dearth in literature on the nature, causes, and consequences of structural stigma in mental healthcare. This study aimed to address this gap by exploring key components for measuring structural stigma in healthcare system settings.

METHODS

We used a modified Delphi method consisting of 3 rounds with global experts (stigma researchers, persons with lived experiences of mental health conditions (PWLEs), and policymakers). In the first round, indicators identified through a literature review (n = 39 studies) were appraised through expert consultation workshops with 22 panellists, including 54.5% women, 41% PWLEs, and 68.2% from low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Round 2 (n = 53 panellists; 51% women, 8.3% PWLEs, and 56.6% from LMICs) involved ranking indicators through an online survey, and Round 3 (n = 58 panellists; 46% women, 21.7% PWLEs, and 60.4% from LMICs) involved re-ranking the results from Round 2. Smith's salience index was calculated to measure consensus and Kendall's coefficient of concordance to determine the degree of agreement. Narrative opinions and feedback from panellists during all three Delphi rounds were also sought.

RESULTS

A list of indicators within five core measurement domains was identified in Round 1. Round 2 results were heterogeneous as indicated by the low to moderate salience of most indicators. Round 3 resulted in 4-5 indicators in each domain, that were ranked as highly salient by the expert panellists. Experts also provided narrative feedback on the definition of structural stigma, barriers to its measurement, domain-specific comments, and indicators-specific comments.

CONCLUSION

The framework aids in defining mental health-related structural stigma in healthcare and framing it in terms of inequities within healthcare system structures. These structures result in negative experiences of PWLEs and limit their access to quality healthcare. This conceptualization, informed by PWLE and stakeholders in LMICs, makes it easier to measure structural stigma and monitor changes in diverse healthcare settings around the world.

A case study of the development of a valid and pragmatic implementation science measure: the Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing Mental Health interventions (BeFITS-MH) measure

BACKGROUND

Few implementation science (IS) measures have been evaluated for validity, reliability and utility - the latter referring to whether a measure captures meaningful aspects of implementation contexts. We present a real-world case study of rigorous measure development in IS that assesses Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing in Mental Health services (BeFITS-MH), with the objective of offering lessons-learned and a framework to enhance measurement utility.

METHODS

We summarize conceptual and empirical work that informed the development of the BeFITS-MH measure, including a description of the Delphi process, detailed translation and local adaptation procedures, and concurrent pilot testing. As validity and reliability are key aspects of measure development, we also report on our process of assessing the measure's construct validity and utility for the implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.

RESULTS

Continuous stakeholder involvement and concurrent pilot testing resulted in several adaptations of the BeFITS-MH measure's structure, scaling, and format to enhance contextual relevance and utility. Adaptations of broad terms such as "program," "provider type," and "type of service" were necessary due to the heterogeneous nature of interventions, type of task-sharing providers employed, and clients served across the three global sites. Item selection benefited from the iterative process, enabling identification of relevance of key aspects of identified barriers and facilitators, and what aspects were common across sites. Program implementers' conceptions of utility regarding the measure's acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility clustered across several common categories.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study provides a rigorous, multi-step process for developing a pragmatic IS measure. The process and lessons learned will aid in the teaching, practice and research of IS measurement development. The importance of including experiences and knowledge from different types of stakeholders in different global settings was reinforced and resulted in a more globally useful measure while allowing for locally-relevant adaptation. To increase the relevance of the measure it is important to target actionable domains that predict markers of utility (e.g., successful uptake) per program implementers' preferences. With this case study, we provide a detailed roadmap for others seeking to develop and validate IS measures that maximize local utility and impact.

Piloting Siyakhana: A community health worker training to reduce substance use and depression stigma in South African HIV and TB care

South Africa has one of the highest rates of HIV/tuberculosis (TB) co-infection, and poor engagement in HIV/TB care contributes to morbidity and mortality. In South Africa, community health workers (CHWs) are tasked with re-engaging patients who have dropped out of HIV/TB care. CHWs have described substantial challenges with substance use (SU) and depression among their patients, while patients have described CHW stigma towards SU and depression as barriers to re-engagement in care. Yet, CHWs receive little-to-no training on SU or depression. Therefore, we piloted Siyakhana, a brief CHW training to reduce stigma related to SU and depression while improving skills for re-engaging these patients in HIV and/or TB care. This study evaluated the preliminary effectiveness (stigma towards SU and depression; clinical competence assessed via roleplay) and implementation (quantitative ratings of feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, adoption; semi-structured written qualitative feedback) of Siyakhana among CHWs and supervisors (N = 17) at pre- and post-training assessments. SU stigma significantly decreased (F(1,16) = 18.94, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.54). Depression stigma was lower than SU stigma at both timepoints and did not significantly decrease after training. CHW clinical competency towards patients with SU/depression significantly improved (t(11) = -3.35, p = 0.007, d = 1.00). The training was rated as feasible, acceptable, appropriate, and likely to be adopted by CHWs and their supervisors. Nonjudgmental communication was commonly described as the most useful training component. Based on this pilot, the training is being refined and evaluated in a larger randomized stepped-wedge clinical trial.

"Early in the morning, there's tolerance and later in the day it disappears" - The intersection of resource scarcity, stress and stigma in mental health and substance use care in South Africa

Stress is a challenge among non-specialist health workers worldwide, particularly in low-resource settings. Understanding and targeting stress is critical for supporting non-specialists and their patients, as stress negatively affects patient care. Further, stigma toward mental health and substance use conditions also impacts patient care. However, there is little information on the intersection of these factors. This sub-analysis aims to explore how substance use and mental health stigma intersect with provider stress and resource constraints to influence the care of people with HIV/TB. We conducted semi-structured interviews (N=30) with patients (n=15) and providers (n=15, non-specialist health workers) within a low-resource community in Cape Town, South Africa. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three key themes were identified: (1) resource constraints negatively affect patient care and contribute to non-specialist stress; (2) in the context of stress, non-specialists are hesitant to work with patients with mental health or substance use concerns, who they view as more demanding and (3) stress contributes to provider stigma, which negatively impacts patient care. Findings highlight the need for multilevel interventions targeting both provider stress and stigma toward people with mental health and substance use concerns, especially within the context of non-specialist-delivered mental health services in low-resource settings.

A Case Study of the Development of a Valid and Pragmatic Implementation Science Measure: The Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing Mental Health Interventions (BeFITS-MH) Measure

Background

Few implementation science (IS) measures have been evaluated for validity, reliability and utility - the latter referring to whether a measure captures meaningful aspects of implementation contexts. In this case study, we describe the process of developing an IS measure that aims to assess Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing in Mental Health services (BeFITS-MH), and the procedures we implemented to enhance its utility.

Methods

We summarize conceptual and empirical work that informed the development of the BeFITS-MH measure, including a description of the Delphi process, detailed translation and local adaptation procedures, and concurrent pilot testing. As validity and reliability are key aspects of measure development, we also report on our process of assessing the measure's construct validity and utility for the implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.

Results

Continuous stakeholder involvement and concurrent pilot testing resulted in several adaptations of the BeFITS-MH measure's structure, scaling, and format to enhance contextual relevance and utility. Adaptations of broad terms such as "program," "provider type," and "type of service" were necessary due to the heterogeneous nature of interventions, type of task-sharing providers employed, and clients served across the three global sites. Item selection benefited from the iterative process, enabling identification of relevance of key aspects of identified barriers and facilitators, and what aspects were common across sites. Program implementers' conceptions of utility regarding the measure's acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were seen to cluster across several common categories.

Conclusions

This case study provides a rigorous, multi-step process for developing a pragmatic IS measure. The process and lessons learned will aid in the teaching, practice and research of IS measurement development. The importance of including experiences and knowledge from different types of stakeholders in different global settings was reinforced and resulted in a more globally useful measure while allowing for locally-relevant adaptation. To increase the relevance of the measure it is important to target actionable domains that predict markers of utility (e.g., successful uptake) per program implementers' preferences. With this case study, we provide a detailed roadmap for others seeking to develop and validate IS measures that maximize local utility and impact.

Mechanisms of action for stigma reduction among primary care providers following social contact with service users and aspirational figures in Nepal: an explanatory qualitative design

BACKGROUND

There are increasing initiatives to reduce mental illness stigma among primary care providers (PCPs) being trained in mental health services. However, there is a gap in understanding how stigma reduction initiatives for PCPs produce changes in attitudes and clinical practices. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of a stigma reduction intervention in Nepal: REducing Stigma among HealthcAre Providers (RESHAPE). In a previous analysis of this pilot, we described differences in stigmatizing attitudes and clinical behaviors between PCPs receiving a standard mental health training (mental health Gap Action Program, mhGAP) vs. those receiving an mhGAP plus RESHAPE training. The goal of this analysis is to use qualitative interview data to explain the quantitative differences in stigma outcomes identified between the trial arms.

METHODS

PCPs were randomized to either standard mental health training using mhGAP led by mental health specialists or the experimental condition (RESHAPE) in which service users living with mental illness shared photographic recovery narratives and participated in facilitated social contact. Qualitative interviews were conducted with PCPs five months post-training (n = 8, standard mhGAP training; n = 20, RESHAPE). Stigmatizing attitudes and clinical practices before and after training were qualitatively explored to identify mechanisms of change.

RESULTS

PCPs in both training arms described changes in knowledge, skills, and confidence in providing mental healthcare. PCPs in both arms described a positive feedback loop, in which discussing mental health with patients encouraged more patients to seek treatment and open up about their illness, which demonstrated for PCPs that mental illness can be treated and boosted their clinical confidence. Importantly, PCPs in the RESHAPE arm were more likely to describe a willingness to treat mental health patients and attributed this in part to social contact with service users during the training.

CONCLUSIONS

Our qualitative research identified testable mechanisms of action for stigma reduction and improving clinical behavior: specifically, recovery stories from service users and social engagement led to greater willingness to engage with patients about mental illness, triggering a feedback loop of more positive experiences with patients who benefit from mental healthcare, which further reinforces willingness to deliver mental healthcare. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02793271.