An integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach to advancing community-based depression care in Vietnam: lessons from an ongoing research-policy collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based mental health policies are key to supporting the expansion of community-based mental health care and are increasingly being developed in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite this, research on the process of mental health policy development in LMICs is limited. Engagement between researchers and policy makers via an integrated Knowledge Translation (iKT) approach can help to facilitate the process of evidence-based policy making. This paper provides a descriptive case study of a decade-long policy and research collaboration between partners in Vietnam, Canada and Australia to advance mental health policy for community-based depression care in Vietnam. METHODS: This descriptive case study draws on qualitative data including team meeting minutes, a focus group discussion with research team leaders, and key informant interviews with two Vietnamese policy makers. Our analysis draws on Murphy et al.'s (2021) findings and recommendations related to stakeholder engagement in global mental health research. RESULTS: Consistent with Murphy et al.'s findings, facilitating factors across three thematic categories were identified. Related to 'the importance of understanding context', engagement between researchers and policy partners from the formative research stage provided a foundation for engagement that aligned with local priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst to further advance the prioritization of mental heath by the Government of Vietnam. 'The nature of engagement' is also important, with findings demonstrating that long-term policy engagement was facilitated by continuous funding mechanisms that have enabled trust-building and allowed the research team to respond to local priorities over time. 'Communication and dissemination' are also crucial, with the research team supporting mental health awareness-raising among policy makers and the community, including via capacity building initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: This case study identifies factors influencing policy engagement for mental health system strengthening in an LMIC setting. Sustained engagement with policy leaders helps to ensure alignment with local priorities, thus facilitating uptake and scale-up. Funding agencies can play a crucial role in supporting mental health system development through longer term funding mechanisms. Increased research related to the policy engagement process in global mental health will further support policy development and improvement in mental health care in LMICs.

Advancing equitable access to digital mental health in the Asia-Pacific region in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A modified Delphi consensus study.

The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on global mental health and well-being, including across the Asia-Pacific. Efforts to mitigate virus spread led to far-reaching disruption in the delivery of health and social services. In response, there was a rapid shift to the use of digital mental health (DMH) approaches. Though these technologies helped to improve access to care for many, there was also substantial risk of access barriers leading to increased inequities in access to mental health care, particularly among at-risk and equity-deserving populations. The objective of this study was to conduct a needs assessment and identify priorities related to equitable DMH access among at-risk and equity-deserving populations in the Asia Pacific region during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study consisted of a modified Delphi consensus methodology including two rounds of online surveys and online consultations with stakeholders from across the region. Study participants included policy makers, clinicians and service providers, and people with lived experience of mental health conditions. Results demonstrate that vulnerabilities to negative mental health impacts and access barriers were compounded during the pandemic. Access barriers included a lack of linguistically and culturally appropriate DMH options, low mental health literacy and poor access to technological infrastructure and devices, low levels of awareness and trust of DMH options, and lack of policies and guidelines to support effective and equitable delivery of DMH. Recommendations to improve equitable access include ensuring that diverse people with lived experience are engaged in research, co-design and policy development, the development and implementation of evidence-based and equity-informed guidelines and frameworks, clear communication about DMH evidence and availability, and the integration of DMH into broader health systems. Study results can inform the development and implementation of equitable DMH as its use becomes more widespread across health systems.