OnTrack Chile for people with early psychosis: a study protocol for a Hybrid Type 1 trial

Early intervention in psychosis programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America; challenges and recommendations

Background

While early intervention in psychosis (EIP) programs have been increasingly implemented across the globe, many initiatives from Africa, Asia and Latin America are not widely known. The aims of the current review are (a) to describe population-based and small-scale, single-site EIP programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America, (b) to examine the variability between programs located in low-and-middle income (LMIC) and high-income countries in similar regions and (c) to outline some of the challenges and provide recommendations to overcome existing obstacles.

Methods

EIP programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America were identified through experts from the different target regions. We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science and Scopus up to February 6, 2024.

Results

Most EIP programs in these continents are small-scale, single-site programs that serve a limited section of the population. Population-based programs with widespread coverage and programs integrated into primary health care are rare. In Africa, EIP programs are virtually absent. Mainland China is one of the only LMICs that has begun to take steps toward developing a population-based EIP program. High-income Asian countries (e.g. Hong Kong and Singapore) have well-developed, comprehensive programs for individuals with early psychosis, while others with similar economies (e.g. South Korea and Japan) do not. In Latin America, Chile is the only country in the process of providing population-based EIP care.

Conclusions

Financial resources and integration in mental health care, as well as the availability of epidemiological data on psychosis, impact the implementation of EIP programs. Given the major treatment gap of early psychosis in Africa, Latin America and large parts of Asia, publicly funded, locally-led and accessible community-based EIP care provision is urgently needed.

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.

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.