The high prevalence of suicidal ideation in primary care points towards important opportunities to implement suicide risk reduction initiatives. Evidence-supported strategies including screening and treatment of depression in primary care can be implemented through the World Health Organization's mental health Global Action Programme suicide prevention and depression treatment guidelines. Suicidal ideation and behaviours in the community sample will require detection strategies to identify at risks persons not presenting to health facilities.

Background.Task-sharing is the involvement of non-specialist providers to deliver mental health services. A challenge for task-sharing programs is to achieve and maintain clinical competence of non-specialists, including primary care workers, paraprofessionals, and lay providers. We developed a tool for non-specialist peer ratings of common factors clinical competency to evaluate and optimize competence during training and supervision in global mental health task-sharing initiatives.Methods.The 18-item ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors (ENACT) tool was pilot-tested with non-specialists participating in mental health Gap Action Programme trainings in Nepal. Qualitative process evaluation was used to document development of the peer rating scoring system. Qualitative data included interviews with trainers and raters as well as transcripts of pre- and post-training observed structured clinical evaluations.Results.Five challenges for non-specialist peer ratings were identified through the process evaluation: (1) balance of training and supervision objectives with research objectives; (2) burden for peer raters due to number of scale items, number of response options, and use of behavioral counts; (3) capturing hierarchy of clinical skills; (4) objective v. subjective aspects of rating; and (5) social desirability when rating peers.Conclusion.The process culminated in five recommendations based on the key findings for the development of scales to be used by non-specialists for peer ratings in low-resource settings. Further research is needed to determine the ability of ENACT to capture the relationship of clinical competence with client outcomes and to explore the relevance of these recommendations for non-specialist peer ratings in high-resource settings.

Background Because of the high burden of untreated mental illness in humanitarian settings and low- and middle-income countries, scaling-up effective psychological interventions require a cultural adaptation process that is feasible and acceptable. Our adaptation process incorporates changes into both content and implementation strategies, with a focus on local understandings of distress and treatment mechanisms of action. Methods Building upon the ecological validity model, we developed a 10-step process, the mental health Cultural Adaptation and Contextualization for Implementation (mhCACI) procedure, and piloted this approach in Nepal for Group Problem Management Plus (PM+), a task-sharing intervention, proven effective for adults with psychological distress in low-resource settings. Detailed documentation tools were used to ensure rigor and transparency during the adaptation process. Findings The mhCACI is a 10-step process: (1) identify mechanisms of action, (2) conduct a literature desk review for the culture and context, (3) conduct a training-of-trainers, (4) translate intervention materials, (5) conduct an expert read-through of the materials, (6) qualitative assessment of intervention population and site, (7) conduct practice rounds, (8) conduct an adaptation workshop with experts and implementers, (9) pilot test the training, supervision, and implementation, and (10) review through process evaluation. For Group PM+, key adaptations were harmonizing the mechanisms of action with cultural models of ‘tension’; modification of recruitment procedures to assure fit; and development of a skills checklist. Conclusion A 10-step mhCACI process could feasibly be implemented in a humanitarian setting to rapidly prepare a psychological intervention for widespread implementation.

Aims Psychological interventions that are brief, acceptable, effective and can be delivered by non-specialists are especially necessary in low- and middle-income countries, where mental health systems are unable to address the high level of psychosocial needs. Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a five-session intervention designed for those impaired by psychological distress while living in communities affected by adversity. Individual PM+ has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing distress in Kenya and Pakistan, and a group version of PM+ (Group PM+) was effective for conflict-affected women in Pakistan. This paper describes a feasibility and acceptability trial of locally adapted Group PM+ for women and men in an earthquake-affected region of rural Nepal. Methods In this feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial, participants in the experimental arm were offered five sessions of Group PM+ and participants in the control arm received enhanced usual care (EUC), which entailed brief psycho-education and providing referral options to primary care services with health workers trained in the mental health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG). A mixed-methods design was used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of Group PM+. Feasibility was assessed with criteria including fidelity and retention of participants. Acceptability was assessed through in-depth interviews with participants, family members, programme staff and other stakeholders. The primary clinical outcome was depression symptoms assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) administered at baseline and 8–8.5 weeks post-baseline (i.e. after completion of Group PM+ or EUC). Results We recruited 121 participants (83% women and 17% men), with equal allocation to the Group PM+ and EUC arms (1:1). Group PM+ was delivered over five 2.5–3 hour sessions by trained and supervised gender-matched local non-specialists, with an average attendance of four out of five sessions. The quantitative and qualitative results demonstrated feasibility and acceptability for non-specialists to deliver Group PM+. Though the study was not powered to assess for effectiveness, for all five key outcome measures, including the primary clinical outcome, the estimated mean improvement was larger in the Group PM+ arm than the EUC arm. Conclusion The intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants, family members, and programme staff. The communities and participants found the intervention to be beneficial. Because feasibility and acceptability were established in this trial, a fully powered randomised controlled trial will be conducted for larger scale implementation to determine the effectiveness of the intervention in Nepal.