Explanatory models of hypertension in Guatemala: recognizing the perspectives of patients, family members, health care providers and administrators, and national-level health system stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hypertension is a major public health burden and the most common preventable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases in Guatemala and other low- and middle-income countries. Prior to an initial trial that evaluated a hypertension intervention in rural Guatemala, we collected qualitative information on the needs and knowledge gaps of hypertension care within Guatemala's public healthcare system. This analysis applied Kleinman's Explanatory Models of Illness to capture how patients, family members, community-, district-, and provincial-level health care providers and administrators, and national-level health system stakeholders understand hypertension.  METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with three types of participants: 1) national-level health system stakeholders (n = 17), 2) local health providers and administrators from district, and health post levels (25), and 3) patients and family members (19) in the departments of Sololá and Zacapa in Guatemala. All interviews were conducted in Spanish except for 6 Maya-Kaqchikel interviews. We also conducted focus group discussions with auxiliary nurses (3) and patients (3), one in Maya-Tz'utujil and the rest in Spanish. Through framework and matrix analysis, we compared understandings of hypertension by participant type using the Explanatory Model of Illness domains -etiology, symptoms, pathophysiology, course of illness, and treatment. RESULTS: Health providers and administrators, and patients described hypertension as an illness that spurs from emotional states like sadness, anger, and worry; is inherited and related to advanced age; and produces symptoms that include a weakened body, nerves, pain, and headaches. Patients expressed concerns about hypertension treatment's long-term consequences, despite trying to comply with treatment. Patients stated that they combine biomedical treatment (when available) with natural remedies (teas and plants). Health providers and administrators and family members stated that once patients feel better, they often disengage from treatment. National-level health system stakeholders referred to lifestyle factors as important causes, considered patients to typically be non-compliant, and identified budget limitations as a key barrier to hypertension care. The three groups of participants identified structural barriers to limited hypertension care (e.g., limited access to healthy food and unaffordability of medications). CONCLUSION: As understandings of hypertension vary between types of participants, it is important to describe their similarities and differences considering the role each has in the health system. Considering different perceptions of hypertension will enable better informed program planning and implementation efforts.

A mixed methods analysis of youth mental health intervention feasibility and acceptability in a North American city: Perspectives from Seattle, Washington.

In March 2021, the Governor of Washington declared a youth mental health crisis. State data revealed high rates of youth suicide and inadequate access to services. This study aims to ascertain the kinds of support across the mental health care continuum recommended by young people and key stakeholders who could assist with implementation in Seattle. We interviewed 15 key informants to identify the contextual, structural, and individual-level factors that increase the risk of poor mental health and deter access to care among youth. We complimented these data with a 25-item survey of 117 participants in King County to assess the feasibility and acceptability of interventions for youth mental health. We conducted a deductive thematic qualitative analysis of the interviews and performed descriptive analyses of the quantitative data, using t-tests and χ2 tests to summarize and compare participant characteristics stratified by age group. Qualitative informants attributed challenges to youth mental health to social isolation and relational problems. Example interventions included creating environments that increase belonging and implementation of culturally congruent mental health services. Quantitative study participants rated all evidence-based mental health interventions presented as highly acceptable. However, youth preferred interventions promoting social connectedness, peer support, and holistic approaches to care, while non-youth preferred interventions focused on suicide, and substance abuse prevention. Key informants and survey participants identified schools as the most important setting for mental health interventions. There were no significant differences among quantitative outcomes. Our findings highlight the need for interventions that reduce isolation and increase social connectedness to support youth mental health. As the city designs youth responsive interventions, schools and digital platforms should be prioritized. Engaging multiple stakeholders, particularly young people, tackling cultural stigma surrounding mental health, and improving access to safe community spaces are important considerations for youth mental health interventions.