Global research suggests that persons with disabilities face barriers when accessing health care services. Yet, information regarding the nature of these barriers, especially in low-income and middle-income countries is sparse. Rural contexts in these countries may present greater barriers than urban contexts, but little is known about access issues in such contexts. There is a paucity of research in South Africa looking at “triple vulnerability” – poverty, disability and rurality. This study explored issues of access to health care for persons with disabilities in an impoverished rural area in South Africa. The study includes a quantitative survey with interviews with 773 participants in 527 households. Comparisons in terms of access to health care between persons with disabilities and persons with no disabilities were explored. The approach to data analysis included quantitative data analysis using descriptive and inferential statistics. Frequency and cross tabulation, comparing and contrasting the frequency of different phenomena between persons with disabilities and persons with no disabilities, were used. Chi-square tests and Analysis of Variance tests were then incorporated into the analysis. Persons with disabilities have a higher rate of unmet health needs as compared to non-disabled. In rural Madwaleni in South Africa, persons with disabilities faced significantly more barriers to accessing health care compared to persons without disabilities. Barriers increased with disability severity and was reduced with increasing level of education, living in a household without disabled members and with age. This study has shown that access to health care in a rural area in South Africa for persons with disabilities is more of an issue than for persons without disabilities in that they face more barriers. Implications are that we need to look beyond the medical issues of disability and address social and inclusion issues as well.

There is limited evidence on the acceptability, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of task-sharing interventions to narrow the treatment gap for mental disorders in sub-Saharan Africa. The purpose of this article is to describe the rationale, aims and methods of the Africa Focus on Intervention Research for Mental health (AFFIRM) collaborative research hub. AFFIRM is investigating strategies for narrowing the treatment gap for mental disorders in sub-Saharan Africa in four areas. First, it is assessing the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of task-sharing interventions by conducting randomised controlled trials in Ethiopia and South Africa. The AFFIRM Task-sharing for the Care of Severe mental disorders (TaSCS) trial in Ethiopia aims to determine the acceptability, affordability, effectiveness and sustainability of mental health care for people with severe mental disorder delivered by trained and supervised non-specialist, primary health care workers compared with an existing psychiatric nurse-led service. The AFFIRM trial in South Africa aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of a task-sharing counselling intervention for maternal depression, delivered by non-specialist community health workers, and to examine factors influencing the implementation of the intervention and future scale up. Second, AFFIRM is building individual and institutional capacity for intervention research in sub-Saharan Africa by providing fellowship and mentorship programmes for candidates in Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Each year five Fellowships are awarded (one to each country) to attend the MPhil in Public Mental Health, a joint postgraduate programme at the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University. AFFIRM also offers short courses in intervention research, and supports PhD students attached to the trials in Ethiopia and South Africa. Third, AFFIRM is collaborating with other regional National Institute of Mental Health funded hubs in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, by designing and executing shared research projects related to task-sharing and narrowing the treatment gap. Finally, it is establishing a network of collaboration between researchers, non-governmental organisations and government agencies that facilitates the translation of research knowledge into policy and practice. This article describes the developmental process of this multi-site approach, and provides a narrative of challenges and opportunities that have arisen during the early phases. Crucial to the long-term sustainability of this work is the nurturing and sustaining of partnerships between African mental health researchers, policy makers, practitioners and international collaborators.

Mental health problems represent the greatest global burden of disease among children and adolescents. There is, however, lack of policy development and implementation for child and adolescent mental health (CAMH), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where children and adolescents represent up to 50% of populations. South Africa, an upper-middle income country is often regarded as advanced in health and social policy-making and implementation in comparison to other LMICs. It is, however, not clear whether this is the case for CAMH. The national child and adolescent mental health policy framework of 2003 was developed to guide the establishment of CAMH policies provincially, using a primary care and intersectoral approach. This policy provided a framework for the nine South African provinces to develop policies and implementation plans, but it is not known whether this has happened. The study sought to examine the history and current state of CAMH policy development and implementation, and to perform a systematic analysis of all available CAMH service-related policies. A comprehensive search was performed to identify all provincial mental health and comprehensive general health policies across South African provinces. The Walt and Gilson policy triangle framework (1994) was used for analysis. No South African province had a CAMH policy or identifiable implementation plans to support the national CAMH policy. Provincial comprehensive general health policies addressed CAMH issues only partially and were developed mainly to address the challenges with HIV/AIDS, TB, maternal and child mortality and adherence to the millennium development goals. The process of policy development was typically a consultative process with internal and external stakeholders. There was no evidence that CAMH professionals and/or users were included in the policy development process. In spite of South Africa’s upper-middle income status, the absence of any publically-available provincial CAMH policy documents was concerning, but in keeping with findings from other LMICs. Our results reinforce the neglect of CAMH even at policy level in spite of the burden of CAMH disorders. There is an urgent need to develop and implement CAMH policies in South Africa and other LMICs. Further research will be required to identify and explore the barriers to policy development and implementation, and to service development and scale-up in CAMH.

Perinatal depression is common in low and middle income countries (LAMICs). Task sharing interventions have been implemented to treat perinatal depression in these settings, as a way of dealing with staff shortages. Task sharing allows lay health workers to provide services for less complex cases while being trained and supervised by specialists. Randomized controlled trials suggest that these interventions can be effective but there is limited qualitative information exploring barriers and facilitators to their implementation. This systematic review aims to systematically review current qualitative evidence of process evaluations of task sharing interventions for perinatal depression in LAMICs in relation to the United Kingdom (UK) Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for conducting process evaluations. We searched Medline/ PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of science for studies from LAMICS using search terms under the broad categories of: (a) “maternal depression’” (b) “intervention” (c) “lay counsellor” OR “community health worker” OR “non-specialist” and (d) “LAMICs”. Abstracts were independently reviewed for inclusion by two authors. Full text articles were screened and data for included articles were extracted using a standard data extraction sheet. Qualitative synthesis of qualitative evidence was conducted. 8420 articles were identified from initial searches. Of these, 26 full text articles were screened for eligibility with only three studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Main findings revealed that participants identified the following crucial factors: contextual factors included physical location, accessibility and cultural norms. Implementation factors included acceptability of the intervention and characteristics of the personnel. Mechanisms included counsellor factors such as motivating and facilitating trust; intervention factors such as use of stories and visual aids, and understandability of the content; and participant factors such as shared experience, meeting learning needs, and meeting expectations. While task sharing has been suggested as an effective way of filling the treatment gap for perinatal depression, there is a paucity of qualitative research exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing these interventions. Qualitative process evaluations are crucial for the development of culturally relevant interventions.

Task sharing of psycho-social interventions for perinatal depression has been shown to be feasible, acceptable and effective in low and middle-income countries. This study conducted a process evaluation exploring the perceptions of counsellors who delivered a task shared psycho-social counselling intervention for perinatal depression in Khayelitsha, Cape Town together with independent fidelity ratings. Post intervention qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with six counsellors from the AFrica Focus on Intervention Research for Mental health (AFFIRM-SA) randomised controlled trial on their perceptions of delivering a task shared psycho-social intervention for perinatal depression. Themes were identified using the framework approach and were coded and analysed using Nvivo v11. These interviews were supplemented with fidelity ratings for each counsellor and supervision notes. Facilitating factors in the delivery of the intervention included intervention related factors such as: the content of the intervention, ongoing training and supervision, using a counselling manual, conducting counselling sessions in the local language (isiXhosa) and fidelity to the manual; counsellor factors included counsellors’ confidence and motivation to conduct the sessions; participant factors included older age, commitment and a desire to be helped. Barriers included contextual factors such as poverty, crime and lack of space to conduct counselling sessions and participant factors such as the nature of the participant’s problem, young age, and avoidance of contact with counsellors. Fidelity ratings and dropout rates varied substantially between counsellors. These findings show that a variety of intervention, counsellor, participant and contextual factors need to be considered in the delivery of task sharing counselling interventions. Careful attention needs to be paid to ongoing supervision and quality of care if lay counsellors are to deliver good quality task shared counselling interventions in under-resourced communities. Clinical Trials: NCT01977326 , registered on 24/10/2013; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR201403000676264 , registered on 11/10/2013.