IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v69y2023i8p2031-2041.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the project ECHOâ„¢ model to teach mental health topics in rural Guatemala: An implementation science-guided evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Javier de la Garza Iga
  • Marinés Mejía Alvarez
  • Joshua D Cockroft
  • Julia Rabin
  • Ana Cordón
  • Dina Maria Elias Rodas
  • Maria del Pilar Grazioso
  • Maria Espinola
  • Christine O’Dea
  • Charles Schubert
  • Shanna D Stryker

Abstract

Background: Mental health (MH) disorders are major causes of disability in Guatemala. Unfortunately, limited academic training and funding resources make MH care inaccessible to most people in rural Guatemala. These disparities leave many indigenous populations without care. Project ECHOâ„¢ is an educational model used globally to deliver virtual training for providers in rural/ underserved communities. The aim of this project was to implement and evaluate a Project ECHOâ„¢ program bridging MH training gaps for providers who serve rural communities in Guatemala. Methods: The Project ECHOâ„¢ curriculum was implemented through a partnership between educational and nonprofit institutions in Guatemala City and the United States. Participants were primary care physicians and nurses working in rural Guatemala as well as medical/nursing/psychology students. Evaluation of its implementation was guided by a RE-AIM framework. Reach, effectiveness, adoption, fidelity, sustainability, acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were evaluated using a mixed-methods approach, using a pre-post survey and semi-structured focus groups. Results: Forty unique participants attended the five sessions. Attitudes about mental health did not change quantitatively but self-efficacy improved in four of five modules. High quality fidelity scores were noted in two of five sessions. Sustainability scores across multiple domains were highly rated. Scores on instruments measuring acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were high. Focus groups showed two main themes: the curriculum filled a gap in education and further adaptation of the model might help improve the experience. Conclusion: Implementation of the Project ECHOâ„¢ educational model appeared to have good reach/adoption, showed improvements in self-efficacy, illuminated facilitators and barriers to sustainability, and was felt to be acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. Qualitative analysis supported these conclusions. Future directions would include ongoing evaluation and monitoring of further Project ECHOâ„¢ curricular experiences through this partnership and adaptation of this project to other learners and settings in Latin America.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Javier de la Garza Iga & Marinés Mejía Alvarez & Joshua D Cockroft & Julia Rabin & Ana Cordón & Dina Maria Elias Rodas & Maria del Pilar Grazioso & Maria Espinola & Christine O’Dea & Ch, 2023. "Using the project ECHOâ„¢ model to teach mental health topics in rural Guatemala: An implementation science-guided evaluation," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 69(8), pages 2031-2041, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:69:y:2023:i:8:p:2031-2041
    DOI: 10.1177/00207640231188038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207640231188038
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00207640231188038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glasgow, R.E. & Vogt, T.M. & Boles, S.M., 1999. "Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(9), pages 1322-1327.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jungyoon Kim & Valerie Pacino & Hongmei Wang & April Recher & Isha Jain & Vaibhavi Mone & Jihyun Ma & Mary Jo Spurgin & Daniel Jeffrey & Stephen Mohring & Jane Potter, 2021. "System Redesign: The Value of a Primary Care Liaison Model to Address Unmet Social Needs among Older Primary Care Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Gonot-Schoupinsky, Freda N. & Garip, Gulcan, 2019. "A flexible framework for planning and evaluating early-stage health interventions: FRAME-IT," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Chelsea M. Cooper & Mary Drake & Justine A. Kavle & Joyce Nyoni & Ruth Lemwayi & Lemmy Mabuga & Anne Pfitzer & Mary Makungu & Elizabeth Massawe & John George, 2021. "Implementing a Novel Facility-Community Intervention for Strengthening Integration of Infant Nutrition and Family Planning in Mara and Kagera, Tanzania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Eugenio Zucchelli & Andrew M Jones & Nigel Rice, 2012. "The evaluation of health policies through dynamic microsimulation methods," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 5(1), pages 2-20.
    5. Gabrielle Scronce & Wanqing Zhang & Matthew Lee Smith & Vicki Stemmons Mercer, 2020. "Characteristics Associated with Improved Physical Performance among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in a Community-Based Falls Prevention Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-12, April.
    6. Saria Hassan & Alexis Cooke & Haneefa Saleem & Dorothy Mushi & Jessie Mbwambo & Barrot H. Lambdin, 2019. "Evaluating the Integrated Methadone and Anti-Retroviral Therapy Strategy in Tanzania Using the RE-AIM Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Julie Cowie & Eileen Calveley & Gillian Bowers & John Bowers, 2018. "Evaluation of a Digital Consultation and Self-Care Advice Tool in Primary Care: A Multi-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Melissa D. Olfert & Rebecca L. Hagedorn & Makenzie L. Barr & Oluremi A. Famodu & Jessica M. Rubino & Jade A. White, 2018. "eB4CAST: An Evidence-Based Tool to Promote Dissemination and Implementation in Community-Based, Public Health Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-13, September.
    9. Sebastian-Ion Ceptureanu & Eduard-Gabriel Ceptureanu & Mihai Cristian Orzan & Irinel Marin, 2017. "Toward a Romanian NPOs Sustainability Model: Determinants of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    10. Michelle Nichols & Ronald Teufel & Sarah Miller & Mohan Madisetti & Christine San Giovanni & Katherine Chike-Harris & Lacy Jones & Margaret Prentice & Kenneth Ruggiero & Teresa Kelechi, 2020. "Managing Asthma and Obesity Related Symptoms (MATADORS): An mHealth Intervention to Facilitate Symptom Self-Management among Youth," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Natalie Bradford & Shirley Chambers & Adrienne Hudson & Jacqui Jauncey‐Cooke & Robyn Penny & Carol Windsor & Patsy Yates, 2019. "Evaluation frameworks in health services: An integrative review of use, attributes and elements," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(13-14), pages 2486-2498, July.
    12. Seonad K. Madden & Helen Skouteris & Cate Bailey & Andrew P. Hills & Kiran D. K. Ahuja & Briony Hill, 2020. "Women in the Workplace: Promoting Healthy Lifestyles and Mitigating Weight Gain during the Preconception, Pregnancy, and Postpartum Periods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-7, January.
    13. Kristen C. Reilly & Patricia Tucker & Jennifer D. Irwin & Andrew M. Johnson & Erin S. Pearson & Dirk E. Bock & Shauna M. Burke, 2018. "“C.H.A.M.P. Families”: Description and Theoretical Foundations of a Paediatric Overweight and Obesity Intervention Targeting Parents—A Single-Centre Non-Randomised Feasibility Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Benjamin L. Robinson & Mike J. Clifford & Sarah Jewitt, 2021. "TIME to Change: An Evaluation of Practical Action Nepal’s Results Based Finance Program," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    15. Floor A. van den Brand & Tessa Magnée & Lotte de Haan-Bouma & Cas Barendregt & Niels H. Chavannes & Onno C. P. van Schayck & Gera E. Nagelhout, 2019. "Implementation of Financial Incentives for Successful Smoking Cessation in Real-Life Company Settings: A Qualitative Needs Assessment among Employers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Prosser, Brenton & Clark, Shannon & Davey, Rachel & Parker, Rhian, 2013. "Developing a public health policy-research nexus: An evaluation of Nurse Practitioner models in aged care," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 55-63.
    17. Currie, Melissa & King, Gillian & Rosenbaum, Peter & Law, Mary & Kertoy, Marilyn & Specht, Jacqueline, 2005. "A model of impacts of research partnerships in health and social services," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 400-412, November.
    18. Guzmán, Azucena & Orellana, Katharine & Ortega, Mariana López & Robledo, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez & Castro, Sara Torres, 2024. "Introducing a multicomponent staff training intervention to reduce antipsychotic medication: Care home management pre and post intervention views of systemic impact, and preliminary RE-AIM evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    19. Holly Blake & Betsy Lai & Emil Coman & Jonathan Houdmont & Amanda Griffiths, 2019. "Move-It: A Cluster-Randomised Digital Worksite Exercise Intervention in China: Outcome and Process Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-23, September.
    20. Petra Boersma & Julia C M van Weert & Berno van Meijel & Rose‐Marie Dröes, 2017. "Implementation of the Veder contact method in daily nursing home care for people with dementia: a process analysis according to the RE‐AIM framework," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3-4), pages 436-455, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:69:y:2023:i:8:p:2031-2041. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.