Search

Global health reciprocal innovation emphasizes the movement of technologies or interventions between high- and low-income countries to address a shared public health problem, in contrast to unidirectional models of "development aid" or "reverse innovation". Evidence-based interventions are frequently adapted from the setting in which they were developed and applied in a new setting, presenting an opportunity for learning and partnership across high- and low-income contexts. However, few clear procedures exist to guide researchers and implementers on how to incorporate equitable and learning-oriented approaches into intervention adaptation across settings. We integrated theories from pedagogy, implementation science, and public health with examples from experience adapting behavioral health interventions across diverse settings to develop a procedure for a bidirectional, equitable process of intervention adaptation across high- and low-income contexts. The Mutual capacity building model for adaptation (MCB-MA) is made up of seven steps: 1) Exploring: A dialogue about the scope of the proposed adaptation and situational appraisal in the new setting; 2) Developing a shared vision: Agreeing on common goals for the adaptation; 3) Formalizing: Developing agreements around resource and data sharing; 4) Sharing complementary expertise: Group originating the intervention supporting the adapting group to learn about the intervention and develop adaptations, while gleaning new strategies for intervention implementation from the adapting group; 5) Reciprocal training: Originating and adapting groups collaborate to train the individuals who will be implementing the adapted intervention; 6) Mutual feedback: Originating and adapting groups share data and feedback on the outcomes of the adapted intervention and lessons learned; and 7) Consideration of next steps: Discuss future collaborations. This evidence-informed procedure may provide researchers with specific actions to approach the often ambiguous and challenging task of equitable partnership building. These steps can be used alongside existing intervention adaptation models, which guide the adaptation of the intervention itself., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Globally, there is a treatment gap for substance use treatment and harm reduction services. As peer-delivered interventions expand to address this gap in both high-income countries (HICs) and low and middle-income countries (LMICs), they provide an opportunity to examine mutual capacity building, the bidirectional exchange of ideas between distinct settings to address common challenges., Methods: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of patients in Cape Town and Baltimore about the acceptability and feasibility of a peer-delivered intervention using a combined qualitative analysis across a HIC and LMIC. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with participants in pilot trials in Cape Town, South Africa and Baltimore, USA (n=55). Across both trials, participants received a peer-delivered behavioral intervention focused on problem solving strategies for medication adherence, behavioral activation, and other cognitive-behavioral skills. The datasets from each location were merged and analyzed jointly using thematic analysis to develop codes and themes. Transcripts were coded to theoretical saturation (n=21 from Baltimore, n=16 from Cape Town)., Results: Participants highlighted what they valued about the peer-delivered intervention: 1) behavioral skills learned, 2) relationship with the peer, 3) ability to help others based on what they learned, 4) improved adherence to HIV or substance use medications, and 5) changes in substance use behaviors. In Baltimore, participants were typically more focused on their supportive relationship with the peer, which contrasted with many other relationships in their lives. In Cape Town, many participants highlighted the value of the skills they learned, such as mindfulness and activity scheduling., Conclusions: Across sites, participants valued that the peer could support them to accomplish meaningful life goals beyond substance use recovery, such as building relationships or health. Differences between settings may highlight the importance of tailoring peer interventions to fill context-specific gaps in available services., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Use of lay health workers for the treatment of common mental disorders is an expanding, yet still underutilized, opportunity for closing the behavioral health treatment gap globally. In this commentary, we describe how "mutual capacity building," an equal exchange of ideas between low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) to promote shared learning, could promote the development and scale-up of therapies using lay health workers. We propose ways that task sharing models for behavioral health can inform and be supported by bidirectional learning across HICs and LMICs.

Less than 1% of biomedical research papers originate in Africa. Locally relevant mental health research, including synthesis of existing evidence, is essential for developing interventions and strengthening health systems, but institutions may lack the capacity to deliver training on systematic reviewing for publication in international journals. This paper describes the development and implementation of a training-of-trainers (ToT) course on systematic reviewing. The ToT prepared junior faculty ('trainers') from universities in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Zimbabwe to lead a five-day systematic reviewing workshop. Using an evaluation framework based on implementation science outcomes, the feasibility of the ToT was assessed by tracking the number of workshops the trainers subsequently conducted and the number of trainers and trainees who participated; acceptability was assessed through post-workshop surveys on trainee perspectives; impact was evaluated through trainee scores on a 15-item multiple choice test on systematic reviewing concepts; and sustainability was assessed based on whether the workshop was integrated into university curricula. Twelve trainers (86% of those trained) facilitated a total of seven workshops in their home countries (total 103 trainees). The first workshop run in each country was evaluated, and there was a significant improvement in mean knowledge scores between pre- and post-tests among trainees ( MD = 3.07, t = 5.90, 95% CI 2.02-4.11). In two of the three countries, there are efforts to integrate the systematic review workshop into university curricula. The cost of the workshop led by the international trainer was $1480 per participant, whereas the trainer-led workshops cost approximately $240 per participant. Overall, ToT is relatively new to research capacity building, although it has been used widely in clinical settings. Our findings suggest ToT is a promising, low-cost way to develop both technical skills of individuals and the pedagogical capacity of universities, and to promote sustainability of research capacity building programs that often have time-limited grant funding.

Despite the need to improve the quantity and quality of psychiatry training in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), very little is known about the experiences of psychiatric trainees in the region. This is the first study examining psychiatric trainees in a low-income country in SSA. It was carried out as part of the needs assessment for a unique Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI) programme to find African solutions for medical shortages in Africa. We approached all doctors who had trained in post-graduate psychiatry in Zimbabwe in 2010 and conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with all except one (n = 6). We analysed the data using constant comparison and thematic analysis. Trainees described the apprenticeship model as the programme's primary strength, through providing clinical exposure and role models. Programme weaknesses included shortages in information sources, trainee salaries, trainers, public health education, and in the mental health service. Most respondents were, however, eager to continue practising psychiatry in Zimbabwe, motivated by family ties, national commitment and helping vulnerable, stigmatized individuals. Respondents called for sub-speciality training and for infrastructure and training to do research. Resources need to be made available for psychiatric trainees in more SSA settings to develop public health competencies. However, investment in psychiatry training programmes must balance service provision with trainees' educational needs. Directing investment towards needs identified by trainees may be a cost-effective, context-sensitive way to increase retention and learning outcomes.