| Literature DB >> 36109792 |
Syed Usman Hamdani1,2,3, Zill-E- Huma4,5,6, Lawrence S Wissow7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As in many low-income countries, the treatment gap for developmental disorders in Pakistan is nearly 100%. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the mental Health Gap Intervention guide (mhGAP-IG) to train non-specialists in the delivery of evidence-based mental health interventions in low-resource settings. However, a key challenge to scale-up of non-specialist-delivered interventions is designing training programs that promote fidelity at scale in low-resource settings. In this case study, we report the experience of using a tablet device-based application to train non-specialist, female family volunteers in leading a group parent skills training program, culturally adapted from the mhGAP-IG, with fidelity at scale in rural community settings of Pakistan.Entities:
Keywords: Developmental disorders; Family volunteers; Low-resource settings; Technology-assisted task-shifting; WHO mhGAP
Year: 2022 PMID: 36109792 PMCID: PMC9479305 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-022-00343-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Implement Sci Commun ISSN: 2662-2211
Fig. 1Conceptual model of implementation evaluation of technology-assisted parent skills training program delivered through “family volunteers” (adapted from Proctor et al. (2009) [13]
Implementation outcomes and their description
| Implementation outcome measure | Description |
|---|---|
| Fidelity | |
| Acceptability | |
| Feasibility | |
| Appropriateness | |
| Reacha | |
| Effectivenessa | |
| Adoptiona | |
| Implementationa | |
| Maintenancea |
aDescription of RE-AIM indices (Holtrop et al. [24])
Fig. 2Cascaded model of training and supervision of program trainers and family volunteers (adapted from Murray et al. 2011). Note: master trainer (UH), program trainers (had at least 16 years of education and 1 year of experience in working with children and families with developmental disorders), family volunteers (FVs) (parents or caregivers of children with developmental disorders, had at least eight grades of formal education, are voluntarily willing to be trained and supervised by the trainers for at least 6 months duration of the program and cascade the training to 4–5 families in their villages)
Implementation constructs and data collection time points
| Implementation outcome/construct | Organization | Providers | Consumers | During program implementation | After 6 months of program implementation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | – | Quantitatively/qualitatively |
| Acceptability | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | – | Quantitatively/qualitatively |
| Appropriateness | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | – | Quantitatively/qualitatively |
| Reach | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Quantitatively/qualitatively | Quantitatively |
| Effectivenessa | – | – | ✓ | – | Quantitatively |
| Adoption | – | ✓ | ✓ | – | Quantitatively |
| Implementation (fidelity) | – | ✓ | – | Quantitatively | – |
Organization = program trainers; providers = family volunteers and consumers = caregivers of children with developmental disorders
aEffectiveness findings are published elsewhere (see Hamdani et al. [10])
Sample matrix for in-depth qualitative interviews (N = 30)
| Categories of participants | |
|---|---|
| Providers who completed the parent skills training program and delivered the intervention to caregivers | 5 |
| Providers who completed the parent skills training program but did not deliver the intervention to caregivers | 5 |
| Providers who did not complete the training in the parent skills training program | 5 |
| Consumers who completed the training in parent skills training intervention | 5 |
| Consumers who did not complete the parent skills training intervention | 5 |
| Organizers (trainers) of parent skills training program who trained providers in the parent skills training intervention | 5 |
Demographic details of participants who provided quantitative data
| Variables | Consumers ( | Providers ( | Organization ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean, SD), years | 35 (±7.6) | 35 (±4.38) | 25.5 (±1.8) |
| Education | |||
| Uneducated | 44 (26.5%) | – | – |
| Primary—grade 5 | 39 (23.5%) | 6 (17%) | – |
| Middle—grade 8 | 17 (10.2%) | 4 (11%) | – |
| Matriculate—grade 10 | 35 (21.1%) | 22 (61%) | – |
| College and university—grades 11–16 | 31 (18.6%) | 4 (11%) | 14 (100%) |
| Number of sessions attended (mean, SD) | – | 9 (0.00) | – |
| Number of sessions delivered (mean, SD) | – | 7.60 (±2.31) | – |
Fig. 3Flow of participants through the study
Descriptive statistics of AMHR D&I* measures (at consumer, provider, and organizer levels)
| Scale | No. of items | M (SD) | Observed range | Possible range on instrument | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer’s level ( | |||||
| Acceptability | 15 | 39.49 (5.92) | 15–45 | 0–45 | 0.91 |
| Feasibility | 13 | 31.29 (4.76) | 13–38 | 0–39 | 0.76 |
| Appropriateness | 10 | 24.62 (4.17) | 9–30 | 0–30 | 0.82 |
| Reach | 4 | 6.99 (1.98) | 3–12 | 0–12 | 0.37 |
| Provider’s level ( | |||||
| Acceptability | 9 | 34.2 (3.01) | 18–34 | 9–36 | 0.89 |
| Feasibility | 15 | 49.7 (5.73) | 26–45 | 15–60 | 0.95 |
| Appropriateness | 9 | 31.8 (4.62) | 14–33 | 9–36 | 0.85 |
| Reach | 4 | 10.6 (2.01) | 4–11 | 4–16 | 0.75 |
| Organizer’s level ( | |||||
| Acceptability | 5 | 17.79 (2.45) | 12–20 | 5–20 | 0.87 |
| Feasibility | 12 | 42.29 (5.44) | 30–48 | 12–48 | 0.90 |
| Appropriateness | 10 | 36.43 (4.16) | 26–40 | 10–40 | 0.88 |
| Reach | 4 | 11.07 (2.84) | 6–15 | 4–16 | 0.77 |
*AMHR D&I Applied Mental Health Research Dissemination and Implementation
Findings of qualitative interviews
| Objectives | Themes | Quote (source) |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability to consumers | Increase in knowledge | |
| Trustable relationship with the provider | ||
| Acceptability to providers | Acceptance from family and community | |
| Facilitated learning through the use of training videos | ||
| Group sessions—created a sense of shared experience | ||
| Feasibility to consumers | Household responsibilities as a barrier | |
| Feasibility to provider | Timing and duration of group sessions | |
| Cooperation from caregivers | ||
| Appropriateness to consumers | Cultural relevance of intervention content | |
| Appropriateness to provider | Relevance of intervention strategies with problems of children |