Task-shared mental health care programs in low-resource settings often incorporate supervisory structures that would be difficult to implement at scale, and many rely on foreign specialist experts as supervisors. Future programs could leverage peer supervision, technology, competency assessments/fidelity checklists, and other tools. Mental health care specialists will require training, support, and incentives to supervise generalist care providers.

Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.

As the burden of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) rises across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), global donors and governments are exploring strategies to integrate HIV and NCD care. Implementation science is an emerging research paradigm that can help such programs achieve health impact at scale. We define implementation science as a systematic, scientific approach to ask and answer questions about how to deliver what works in populations who need it with greater speed, appropriate fidelity, efficiency, and relevant coverage. We identified achievements and gaps in the application of implementation science to HIV/NCD integration, developed an HIV/NCD implementation science research agenda, and detailed opportunities for capacity building and training. We conducted a systematic review of the application of implementation science methods to integrated HIV/NCD programs in SSA. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for evaluations of integrated programs in SSA reporting at least one implementation outcome. We identified 31 eligible studies. We found that most studies used only qualitative, economic, or impact evaluation methods. Only one study used a theoretical framework for implementation science. Acceptability, feasibility, and penetration were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. Adoption, appropriateness, cost, and fidelity were rare; sustainability was not evaluated. Implementation science has a promising role in supporting HIV/NCD integration, although its impact will be limited unless theoretical frameworks, rigorous study designs, and reliable measures are employed. To help support use of implementation science, we need to build sustainable implementation science capacity. Doing so in SSA and supporting implementation science investigators can help expedite HIV/NCD integration.

Introduction: Numerous effective HIV prevention options exist, including behaviour change interventions, condom promotion and biomedical interventions, like voluntary medical male circumcision and pre‐exposure prophylaxis. However, populations at risk of HIV also face overlapping vulnerabilities to common mental disorders and severe mental illness. Mental health status can affect engagement in HIV risk behaviours and HIV prevention programmes. We conducted a narrative review of the literature on HIV prevention among key populations and other groups vulnerable to HIV infection to understand the relationship between mental health conditions and HIV prevention outcomes and summarize existing evidence on integrated approaches to HIV prevention and mental healthcare.Methods: We searched five databases for studies published from January 2015 to August 2020, focused on HIV prevention and mental health conditions among key populations and individuals with serious mental illness. Studies were included if they evaluated an HIV prevention intervention or assessed correlates of HIV risk reduction and included assessment of mental health conditions or a mental health intervention.Results and discussion: We identified 50 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, of which 26 were randomized controlled trials or other experimental designs of an HIV prevention intervention with or without a mental health component. Behaviour change interventions were the most common HIV prevention approach. A majority of studies recruited men who have sex with men and adolescents. Two studies provided distinct approaches to integrated HIV prevention and mental health service delivery. Overall, a majority of included studies showed that symptoms of mental disorder or distress are associated with HIV prevention outcomes (e.g. increased risky sexual behaviour, poor engagement in HIV prevention behaviours). In addition, several studies conducted among groups at high risk of poor mental health found that integrating a mental health component into a behaviour change intervention or linking mental health services to combination prevention activities significantly reduced risk behaviour and mental distress and improved access to mental healthcare.Conclusions: Evidence suggests that mental health conditions are associated with poorer HIV prevention outcomes, and tailored integrated approaches are urgently needed to address overlapping vulnerabilities among key populations and other individuals at risk.

Background: We systematically reviewed implementation research targeting depression interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to assess gaps in methodological coverage. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of depression interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome published through March 2019. Results: A total of 8714 studies were screened, 759 were assessed for eligibility, and 79 studies met inclusion criteria. Common implementation outcomes reported were acceptability (n = 50; 63.3%), feasibility (n = 28; 35.4%), and fidelity (n = 18; 22.8%). Only four studies (5.1%) reported adoption or penetration, and three (3.8%) reported sustainability. The Sub-Saharan Africa region (n = 29; 36.7%) had the most studies. The majority of studies (n = 59; 74.7%) reported outcomes for a depression intervention implemented in pilot researcher-controlled settings. Studies commonly focused on Hybrid Type-1 effectiveness-implementation designs (n = 53; 67.1), followed by Hybrid Type-3 (n = 16; 20.3%). Only 21 studies (26.6%) tested an implementation strategy, with the most common being revising professional roles (n = 10; 47.6%). The most common intervention modality was individual psychotherapy (n = 30; 38.0%). Common study designs were mixed methods (n = 27; 34.2%), quasi-experimental uncontrolled pre-post (n = 17; 21.5%), and individual randomized trials (n = 16; 20.3). Conclusions: Existing research has focused on early-stage implementation outcomes. Most studies have utilized Hybrid Type-1 designs, with the primary aim to test intervention effectiveness delivered in researcher-controlled settings. Future research should focus on testing and optimizing implementation strategies to promote scale-up of evidence-based depression interventions in routine care. These studies should use high-quality pragmatic designs and focus on later-stage implementation outcomes such as cost, penetration, and sustainability.