Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
      • The Challenge Initiative Platform
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Alerts
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • Follow GHSP on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
COMMENTARY
Open Access

Toward Meaningful Cultural Adaptation Across Implementation Stages: Lessons Learned From a Culturally Based HIV Stigma Intervention in Gaborone, Botswana

Ohemaa B. Poku, Evan L. Eschliman, Rayna Y. Wang, Shathani Rampa, Haitisha Mehta, Patlo Entaile, Tingyu Li, Valerie W. Jackson, Ari Ho-Foster, Michael B. Blank and Lawrence H. Yang
Global Health: Science and Practice December 2022, 10(6):e2200232; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00232
Ohemaa B. Poku
aHIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, Division of Gender, Sexuality, and Health, Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: op2190@cumc.columbia.edu
Evan L. Eschliman
bDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rayna Y. Wang
cNew York Coalition for Asian American Mental Health, New York, NY, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shathani Rampa
dDepartment of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, Queens, NY, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Haitisha Mehta
eDepartment of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patlo Entaile
fBotswana-UPenn Partnership, Gaborone, Botswana.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tingyu Li
gDepartment of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valerie W. Jackson
hDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ari Ho-Foster
iResearch and Graduate Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana; Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael B. Blank
jPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lawrence H. Yang
kDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Key Messages

  • We share lessons learned on how each stage of the implementation process of a culturally based stigma intervention benefited from cultural adaptation—including incorporating interexchange of knowledge during formative work, leveraging bilingualism and the cultural familiarity of local collaborators during the intervention, and prioritizing the concerns of local collaborators to inform intervention sustainment and scale-up.

  • The implementation process could have been improved by more fully formalizing and recognizing the steps taken by local collaborators to culturally adapt throughout design and implementation.

  • Lessons learned from this demonstration case can inform scale-up and sustainment of interventions whose implementation relies—either explicitly or implicitly—on cultural adaptation and local collaborators.

  • Programs can benefit from building relationships of mutual respect and reciprocity with local collaborators and formally recognizing and supporting their contributions to cultural adaptation throughout the stages of implementation.

INTRODUCTION

Being responsive to cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic differences between intervention teams and participants is crucial for prudent, responsible, and effective implementation of global health interventions. A variety of concepts, approaches, and models have been proposed to ensure that the intervention resonates with its priority population, such as cultural competency,1–4 structural competency,5 cultural humility,6 trauma-informed approaches,7–9 and the biopsychosocial model.10 Additionally, methodologies such as community-based participatory research and other community-engaged methods also seek to coproduce research and interventions with their priority populations.11–15 These concepts, approaches, models, and methods vary in their emphases on interpersonal interactions, multilevel structures and systems, definitions of skills or processes, and redistribution of power. However, they have a shared focus on critically examining how various factors influence the care provided to individuals or groups, and they share a common goal to improve service provision and ultimately reduce disparities in care.

Implementation science also values fit between the intervention and the priority population. One way to help achieve fit that has been discussed in the context of implementation science is cultural adaptation, defined by Bernal et al.16 as “systematic modification of an EBT [evidence-based treatment] or intervention protocol to consider language, culture, and context in such a way that it is compatible with the client’s cultural patterns, meanings, and values.”17,18 Cabassa and Baumann17 argue that by integrating implementation science and cultural adaptation in mental health treatments, cultural factors can be considered explicitly at multiple levels. This, in turn, leads to clearer understandings of the context around an EBT that enhances practice and implementation outcomes and can also help navigation of the tension between adapting an intervention and maintaining fidelity to the EBT.19–23 Additionally, a growing body of literature and reviews show that cultural adaptation can be valuable in improving health outcomes24,25 and has the potential to improve intervention engagement and sustainability.26

A growing body of literature shows that cultural adaptation can be valuable in improving health outcomes and has the potential to improve intervention engagement and sustainability.

However, more exploration of the mechanisms by which cultural adaptation can and should happen is needed.27 The numerous models24,27–30 for cultural adaptation of health interventions that have been described and proposed share themes of gaining an understanding of the local context, considering the appropriateness of elements in the intervention, and adapting and implementing the intervention. In these models, however, strategies of engaging members of the local community and reflecting upon existing power structures are not consistently described. These considerations may be included during needs assessments, but they are not always reported in later stages of interventions.

Moreover, the terms used in this field and this article, such as culture, cultural adaptation, and EBTs have their own limitations. These terms have been conceptualized in ways that can perpetuate systems of oppression and marginalization. For example, the term culture has historically been used in the United States mostly in reference to minoritized racial and ethnic groups, a practice that can perpetuate an oppressive tradition in which “culture becomes a source of deviance…and Euro-American culture becomes the de facto norm and ‘standard.’”31 Health-related behaviors of participants have accordingly been too frequently and inappropriately framed as “cultural” when participants are also dynamically impacted by social, economic, and political environments.31 Furthermore, although EBTs have been grounded in rigorous testing processes, EBT research can also be inequitable as they have been historically tested with and published by individuals who work or study in academic settings.32 In sum, cultural adaptations need to occur in response not only to White, Eurocentric conceptualizations of culture but also to broader intersecting sociohistorical, structural, and contextual factors that impact research teams and participants.

In this commentary, we add to the burgeoning literature on the intersection of cultural adaptation frameworks and implementation science—while remaining cognizant of their limitations—by presenting the demonstration case of a culturally based stigma intervention for pregnant women living with HIV in Botswana called Mothers Moving towards Empowerment (MME; pronounced “mm-eh,” a Setswana term for a respected woman).

A primary emphasis in this case is the critical role of local collaborators. We consider a local collaborator to be anyone from the same cultural context as the intervention’s participants who also partners with or is a part of the research team. Local collaborators can include data collectors, study coordinators, and intervention facilitators and peer coleaders—with these roles not being mutually exclusive. Although participants in our intervention were also integral to intervention implementation, we consider them separately from local collaborators in this article because they were recruited and consented to be enrolled in the intervention and therefore were not a formalized part of the research team.

We use the stages of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework33 to serve as an organizational framework to discuss cultural adaptation across all stages of implementation. The Table provides a high-level summary of the steps taken toward cultural adaptation and key findings from each stage that informed the implementation of MME, as well as suggestions to recognize the involvement and roles of local collaborators more formally across each EPIS stage.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE.

Cultural Adaptation Related to MME Throughout EPIS Stages and Suggestions for Further Formalizing the Involvement of Local Collaborators

EXPLORATION AND PREPARATION

Exploration is the EPIS stage that entails identifying emergent or existing health needs within the community, followed by consideration of the best evidence-based approach to meet those needs.33 The research group and/or local stakeholder(s) explore ways to address the identified need by adapting the intervention to operate at or within system, organization, and individual level(s). This initial inquiry is followed by preparation, the second phase of the EPIS framework, in which the primary objectives are to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, recognize resources and supports required to necessitate adaptation, and develop the specifics of the intervention.33 Incorporation of local cultural meanings can be and is often done during these stages but sometimes is not formalized or recognized as cultural adaptation. Further, researchers can be untrustworthy to local participants, especially in initial stages of research, meaning local cultural meanings may be incorrectly extracted, misused, or appropriated by researchers when not accounting for existing power dynamics. It is essential that research teams build relationships with local collaborators with mutual respect and reciprocity, which requires sharing power.15

Our formative qualitative research was motivated by the identification of HIV-related stigma as a major barrier to taking antiretroviral therapy among women in Botswana, particularly postpartum. Local collaborators recommended to our team by other local collaborators—in this case, study and project managers who were already affiliated with international university partnerships—were instrumental in conducting in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with people living with HIV and people whose HIV status was not asked about. Some of these new local collaborators later became key members of the research team throughout the subsequent stages described in later sections.

After data collection, the What Matters Most theory34,35 was then used to identify aspects of life that “matter most” and allow a person to achieve “full personhood” within their specific local context (i.e., contemporary Setswana culture). Results revealed that HIV-related stigma is heavily gendered, “being a respected mother” helps women achieve “full womanhood” and resist stigma, and HIV-related stigma is felt most acutely by women when living with HIV threatens the status of “being a respected mother.”36 Identifying the salience of gender and gender norms during this early phase guided many of the subsequent steps involved in the cultural adaptation. These results also underwent review by key informants from the community and allowed for further contextualization of the findings.37

Then, to facilitate further clarification and implementation of these core concepts that were identified, the investigating team collaborated with local stakeholders (e.g., the Greater Gaborone District Health Management Team) and those with expertise working with women in Botswana (i.e., an HIV care pediatrician, psychiatrist, and epidemiologist) to form a steering committee. This steering committee guided the cultural adaptation of a previously implemented38 evidence-based stigma intervention. The resulting intervention, MME, consists of group sessions led by women living with HIV and organized around the components of psychoeducation for HIV, challenging inaccurate stereotypes of HIV, and identifying behavioral coping responses for HIV-related discrimination.39

For MME, preparation also included committee members convening weekly (on Skype and in person) to develop the MME manual and ensure its responsiveness to the cultural context. A local clinical expert, psychology graduates with training in counseling, and peer coleaders (i.e., women who identified as living with HIV during preg-nancy in the past) were engaged in developing the manual. The peer coleaders, also referred to in this article as local collaborators, were later trained on the intervention delivery skills through a partnership between local and U.S.-based clinicians. Discussions with the peer coleaders and local clinical experts surrounding potential barriers and enablers of MME also enhanced the ability of the entire research team to address these barriers while working toward a partnership with and leveraging the skills of the facilitators before implementation. This intensive, collaborative step made it clear that both communication with local collaborators and adaptation of the intervention materials need to be iterative and ongoing. For example, the team learned from local collaborators that women commonly register for antenatal care later in pregnancy than the recruitment criteria had originally planned for. This led to MME focusing recruitment efforts on women later in pregnancy when mothers typically visit antenatal clinics, which in turn led to more efficient outreach for study recruitment and sharing information regarding the vertical transmission of HIV.

Discussions with peer coleaders and local clinical experts over potential barriers and enablers enhanced the ability of the entire research team to address these obstacles before implementation.

Additionally, cultural components were added to the intervention via the incorporation of local idioms. For example, “being free” was identified as a local idiom reflecting a sort of internal liberation in which an individual feels empowered and as having no bondages—that “nothing’s holding me back.” Accordingly, the cognitive behavioral therapy intervention module was renamed “The Road to Self-Acceptance and Freedom.” Feedback from local collaborators also led to the develop-ment of a graduation ceremony component involving the bestowing of ceremonial shawls similar to those often bestowed at marriage that signal maturity and womanhood. This provided another way to convey to participants that they can indeed achieve "what matters most" (i.e., “being a respected mother”) while living with HIV. Later, feedback from participants suggested this ceremonial aspect was indeed an empowering tool for mothers that enabled reclamation of freedom and agency, as well as the possibility of being a woman respected in her community.

IMPLEMENTATION

Next, during the implementation phase, an adapted intervention is initiated into its intended systems and organizations.33 Ongoing efforts to monitor the implementation process while adjusting implementing strategies are crucial for translating research into effective practice and enhanced through a cadre of local collaborators who provide iterative feedback. The EPIS framework delineates several outer and inner contextual factors that may potentially influence implementation effectiveness.33,40 In the framework, the outer context refers to the sociopolitical environment outside the organization such as funding resources, service contracting, and leadership for implementation. The inner context refers to organizational characteristics such as organizational structures, priorities and goals, culture and climate, and readiness to implement the intervention. Together, the outer and inner components reflect the dynamic and multilayered nature of the implementation process, but little in the EPIS framework explicitly names how these outer and inner contextual factors relate to cultural adaptation.

In the case of MME, it was largely local collaborators who drove cultural adaptation during implementation. When hearing reflections from local collaborators, it became evident that in many ways, they were undertaking their own type of fidelity checks when facilitating each session, taking note of what worked best and what needed modification. It should be noted that per our study’s protocol, fidelity checks with a clinical psychologist were a core component of the intervention—not only to ensure delivery of the intervention but also to provide space for facilitators to reflect and receive support. In turn, as they facilitated the intervention, local collaborators then seamlessly and in real time made these changes at the microlevel that are now informing the overall macrolevel of the intervention itself in ways necessary for scale-up to occur. For example, local collaborators worked closely with participants and the clinics where the intervention was sited to minimize burden and inconvenience for all parties involved (e.g., peer coleaders and study coordinators asked the clinic to change the intervention time to ensure participants had safe transportation arranged after each session was complete). This identification of what tailoring is necessary to meet the needs of both participants and those implementing the intervention, especially for the sake of fidelity, is known to be an integral step in comprehensively applying an intervention to a specific setting.41

Local collaborators largely drove cultural adaptation during implementation, taking note of what worked best and what needed modifications while facilitating sessions.

Another specific insight in this vein shared by local collaborators is that a “choice” between languages may not be wholly binary. Although English is the official language in Botswana, Setswana is the national and most widely spoken language. Local collaborators shared their observations that being open to using both English and Setswana allowed participants to express themselves openly and confidently. This iterative process of flexibly switching between the 2 languages was core to the success of MME; 1 poignant statement shared by a local collaborator was that “the second you show yourself to lack proficiency in a language, it creates a barrier.”

Local collaborators also shared that in some cases, participants even took on the role of a facilitator to help with translation concerns and help each other convey their ideas more accurately. It was clear that switching between languages happens naturally during real-time conversation and that challenges arise after the fact to find the “perfect term” to capture discussions. Consideration of the spectrum of bilingualism and how to enable MME’s responsiveness to it clearly helped enable its success, as a similar sensitivity could for other interventions. Additionally, when bilingual facilitators from the local culture adapt the intervention based on linguistic norms of the community, it also redistributes power by giving local collab-orators a degree of control over intervention content that was largely developed by nonlocal, English-speaking researchers.

Feedback provided by local collaborators indicated that their ability to adapt and their willingness to innovate led to a depth and breadth of resourcefulness that enhanced implementation of MME and, ultimately, made the intervention work better for participants. For example, the local collaborators in these roles took the time to listen and accurately capture experiences, which made the participants feel valued and that they were equals. This also afforded a strong relationship between local collaborators and the participants that kept them engaged throughout the intervention as well as aided in the retention rates per session. Additional outcomes and successes of MME, such as the decreases in HIV-related stigma and depressive symptoms, are published separately.42 How outcomes and “success” are measured, reported, and distributed also deserves reflection and attention. Although discussion around cultural adaptation of evaluation lies outside the scope of our article, it was clear that the adaptations made by local collaborators in the process of implementation should be celebrated and recognized in evaluation efforts. A greater understanding of the many unspoken but essential roles local collaborators had in facilitating MME enhances not only the future fidelity and suitability of the intervention, but also lends further understanding of the ways these critical personnel could be recognized and supported. Engaging with collaborators and fully recognizing the ways they adapt the actual delivery of an intervention has been noted as a fundamental step in intervention implementation,41 and it is particularly necessary for cultural adaptation as well.

SUSTAINMENT

Sustainment, the last phase in the EPIS framework, is viewed as “the continued use of an innovation in practice”33 and plays a role similar to other phases that have been denoted in the literature such as “maintenance”43 or “self-regulation.”44 It is also important to note that definitions of sustainability in implementation science remain highly varied between studies and implementation frameworks.45,46 In this article, however, we consider sustainment as a phase that follows the first cycle of use of an intervention or practice (i.e., a pilot).

In the case of MME, our sustainment phase includes considerations for scaling up the intervention for potential national application, which may not be the case for other interventions applying the EPIS framework. Sustainment—and relatedly, sustainability—are increasingly being acknowledged as key areas of improvement for the implementation of culturally adapted and other interventions.26,47 Leading scholars in the field recognize the need for much more research and engagement around these concepts to work toward a beneficial understanding of sustainability and how to best ensure it,48 and very little to date has been researched or written about the role of cultural adaptation in the sustainment phase of interventions.

Through conducting interviews with local collaborators involved in MME, it became clear that these study team members also had insights and experiences related to sustainment and sustainability. For example, local collaborators explained that language-related difficulties will likely arise when scaling up MME. Specifically, local collab-orators pointed out it will be necessary to have a Setswana version of the intervention manual alongside the existing Setswana versions of participant handouts. While real-time flexibility in language use and other linguistic adaptations were a key strength of the facilitators during this intervention, local collaborators felt that having both English and Setswana versions of the manual to see suggested translations of concepts would reduce the burden for session leaders in the future. Relying solely on the creation of real-time translations could also reduce fidelity of the intervention by allowing for greater variation in how concepts integral to the intervention (e.g., stigma, motherhood) are introduced to the groups. In addition, these linguistic adaptations may need to change at different intervention sites because key vocabulary may not overlap in regions outside of Gaborone, and other dialects and languages would need to be incorporated.

Local collaborators shared insights related to sustainment, such as language-related difficulties that will likely arise when scaling up MME.

The local collaborators also raised human resources concerns relevant to sustainment and sustainability. It was noted that group sessions often took place after clinic staff had left work for the day. This meant that any clinical staff who attended the group sessions had to stay after work, and if clinical staff did not want to stay, it was also more difficult to obtain answers to women’s clinical questions around HIV that may have arisen during the group session. Similarly, local collaborators expressed concerns that these clinical staff worked only in antenatal care, and therefore would not necessarily be in participants’ lives postpartum. In considering scale-up, this information is invaluable to accurately determine the timing and resources needed to successfully implement MME in a way that does not overly strain the clinics at which it will be sited and best ensures that participants have greater continuity in nonstigmatizing care.

As we plan to scale up MME, we recognize the important role that local collaborators can play in cultural adaptation broadly, and in turn, how they can contribute greatly to scale-up and sustainability. A critical factor in any next steps to sustain or scale up MME will be the identification and recruitment of additional local collaborators who have the same dedication and care that has undoubtedly contributed to MME’s success. Additionally, local collaborators should be given the resources and support to pursue their self-identified professional goals when possible as interventions and their teams expand. Few published research efforts to promote sustainability proactively include, or at least formalize, the experiences, expertise, and insights that local collaborators can provide. More often, efforts are focused on capturing opinions of community members and local experts who have not been directly involved in the intervention, thereby potentially excluding the local collaborators—and participants—who may have important insights about what will and will not work. Looking at the influence that local collaborators can and do have on sustainment can reveal beneficial synergies in common sustainment strategies such as ensuring and measuring cultural fit,26 delineating implementation strategies (e.g., through “mapping”), and developing strategic action plans.47–49 It is possible that study teams do obtain regular feedback from local collaborators via qualitative or informal methods; however, the lack of reporting of these processes means each study team may be using their own ad hoc methods with little opportunity to build best practice or strategies around interfacing with local collaborators around sustainment, sustainability, and scale-up.

CONCLUSION

By situating the experience of the cultural adaptation process that resulted in the development of MME within the EPIS framework, this article sought to capture the ways in which the implementation process benefited from cultural adaptation—especially via the efforts of community members, local collaborators, and participants. At the same time, this process could have been improved by more fully formalizing and recognizing the steps taken to culturally adapt throughout the implementation, especially uplifting the critical role of local collaborators; suggestions to this end are provided in the Table.

Implementation science would also benefit from additional research on the roles of local collaborators in cultural adaptation. Clearly, concepts within community-engaged research, such as the exchange of knowledge with community providers, building relationships with mutual respect and reciprocity, commitment to ongoing communication, and leadership development among research teams14,50–52 are relevant to creating a more equitable research and implementation process. Additionally, actions toward the goal of decolonizing global health require approaches and practices that acknowledge the history of colonialism and actively resist the perpetuation of patterns of oppression, exclusion, and exploitation.53,54 As more equitable strategies and practices emerge, it is also important to recognize that strategies may—and should—vary for each specific context and project given the complex power dynamics at play. The lessons learned from this demonstration case can serve to inform scale-up and sustainment of not only this specific intervention, MME, but also other interventions whose implementation relies—either explicitly or implicitly—on cultural adaptation and local collaborators.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the immeasurable work of all the local collaborators who have ensured and will continue to ensure the positive impact of Mothers Moving towards Empowerment.

Funding

No funding source directly supported this specific manuscript. The intervention described was supported by a grant and core support services from the Penn Mental Health AIDS Research Center, a National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded program (P30MH097488); a Fogarty International Center and National Institutes of Mental Health R21 grant (TW011084-01; PI: L.H. Yang); and the Focus for Health Foundation; as well as core support services provided by the Penn Center for AIDS Research, an NIH-funded program (P30AI045008). Ohemaa B. Poku, PhD, MPH is supported by Award Number T32MH019139 from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Author contributions

MBB and LHY served as senior authors. Conception and design: OBP, ELE, and MBB; analysis and interpretation of results: OBP, ELE, and RYW; project implementation and monitoring: SR, PE, and VWJ; writing: OBP, ELE, RYW, HM, and TL; revision and editing: OBP, ELE, RYW, SR, VWJ, AHF, and LHY; project supervision and project funding acquisition: AHF, MBB, and LHY. The final article was reviewed and approved by all authors.

Competing interests

None declared.

Notes

Peer Reviewed

First published online: November 22, 2022.

Cite this article as: Poku OB, Eschliman EL, Wang RY, et al. Toward meaningful cultural adaptation across implementation stages: lessons learned from a culturally based HIV stigma intervention in Gaborone, Botswana. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(6):e2200232. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00232

  • Received: May 12, 2022.
  • Accepted: November 2, 2022.
  • Published: December 21, 2022.
  • © Poku et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00232

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Beach MC,
    2. Price EG,
    3. Gary TL,
    4. et al
    . Cultural competence: a systematic review of health care provider educational interventions. Med Care. 2005;43(4):356–373. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000156861.58905.96. pmid:15778639
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    1. Betancourt JR,
    2. Green AR,
    3. Carrillo JE,
    4. Ananeh-Firempong O II..
    Defining cultural competence: a practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care. Public Health Rep. 2003;118(4):293–302. doi:10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50253-4. pmid:12815076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    1. Bhui K,
    2. Warfa N,
    3. Edonya P,
    4. McKenzie K,
    5. Bhugra D
    . Cultural competence in mental health care: a review of model evaluations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):15. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-15. pmid:17266765
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Saha S,
    2. Beach MC,
    3. Cooper LA
    . Patient centeredness, cultural competence and healthcare quality. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008;100(11):1275–1285. doi:10.1016/S0027-9684(15)31505-4. pmid:19024223
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Metzl JM,
    2. Hansen H
    . Structural competency: theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality. Soc Sci Med. 2014;103:126–133. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.032. pmid:24507917
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Tervalon M,
    2. Murray-García J
    . Cultural humility versus cultural competence: a critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9(2):117–125. doi:10.1353/hpu.2010.0233. pmid:10073197
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-informed Approach. SAMHSA; 2014. Accessed November 7, 2022. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/SAMHSA-s-Concept-of-Trauma-and-Guidance-for-a-Trauma-Informed-Approach/SMA14-4884
  8. 8.
    1. Harris M,
    2. Fallot RD
    . Trauma-informed inpatient services. New Dir Ment Health Serv. 2001;(89):33–46. doi:10.1002/yd.23320018905. pmid:11291261
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Hopper EK,
    2. Bassuk EL,
    3. Olivet J
    . Shelter from the storm: trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings. Open Health Serv Policy J. 2010;3(1):80–100. doi:10.2174/1874924001003010080
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Engel GL
    . The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–136. doi:10.1126/science.847460. pmid:847460
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Isler MR,
    2. Corbie-Smith G
    . Practical steps to community engaged research: from inputs to outcomes. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(4):904–914. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00719.x. pmid:23289693
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Wallerstein N,
    2. Duran B,
    3. Oetzel JG,
    4. Minkler M
    1. Israel BA,
    2. Schulz AJ,
    3. Parker EA,
    4. et al
    . Critical issues in developing and following CBPR Principles. In: Wallerstein N, Duran B, Oetzel JG, Minkler M, eds. Community-based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity. 3rd ed. Jossey-Bass and Pfeiffer Imprints, Wiley; 2018:31–46.
  13. 13.
    1. Levin MB,
    2. Bowie JV,
    3. Ragsdale SK,
    4. Gawad AL,
    5. Cooper LA,
    6. Sharfstein JM
    . Enhancing community engagement by schools and programs of public health in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42(1):405–421. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102324. pmid:33176564
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Luger TM,
    2. Hamilton AB,
    3. True G
    . Measuring community-engaged research contexts, processes, and outcomes: a mapping review. Milbank Q. 2020;98(2):493–553. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12458. pmid:32428339
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Muhammad M,
    2. Wallerstein N,
    3. Sussman AL,
    4. Avila M,
    5. Belone L,
    6. Duran B
    . Reflections on researcher identity and power: the impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Crit Sociol. 2015;41(7–8):1045–1063. doi:10.1177/0896920513516025. pmid:27429512
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Bernal G,
    2. Jiménez-Chafey MI,
    3. Domenech Rodríguez MM
    . Cultural adaptation of treatments: a resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2009;40(4):361–368. doi:10.1037/a0016401
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Cabassa LJ,
    2. Baumann AA. A
    two-way street: bridging implementation science and cultural adaptations of mental health treatments. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):90. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-90. pmid:23958445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Castro FG,
    2. Barrera M Jr.,
    3. Holleran Steiker LK
    . Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6(1):213–239. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-033109-132032. pmid:20192800
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Blakely CH,
    2. Mayer JP,
    3. Gottschalk RG,
    4. et al
    . The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. Am J Community Psychol. 1987;15(3):253–268. doi:10.1007/BF00922697
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.
    1. Castro FG,
    2. Barrera M Jr.,
    3. Martinez CR Jr..
    The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prev Sci. 2004;5(1):41–45. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd. pmid:15058911
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    1. Chambers DA,
    2. Norton WE
    . The adaptome: advancing the science of intervention adaptation. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4 Suppl 2):S124–S131. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.011. pmid:27371105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. Elliott DS,
    2. Mihalic S
    . Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prev Sci. 2004;5(1):47–53. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013981.28071.52. pmid:15058912
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Mejia A,
    2. Leijten P,
    3. Lachman JM,
    4. Parra-Cardona JR
    . Different strokes for different folks? Contrasting approaches to cultural adaptation of parenting interventions. Prev Sci. 2017;18(6):630–639. doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0671-2. pmid:27338569
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Barrera M Jr.,
    2. Castro FG,
    3. Strycker LA,
    4. Toobert DJ
    . Cultural adaptations of behavioral health interventions: a progress report. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81(2):196–205. doi:10.1037/a0027085. pmid:22289132
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hall GCN,
    2. Ibaraki AY,
    3. Huang ER,
    4. Marti CN,
    5. Stice E
    . A meta-analysis of cultural adaptations of psychological interventions. Behav Ther. 2016;47(6):993–1014. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2016.09.005. pmid:27993346
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Barrera M Jr.,
    2. Berkel C,
    3. Castro FG
    . Directions for the advancement of culturally adapted preventive interventions: local adaptations, engagement, and sustainability. Prev Sci. 2017;18(6):640–648. doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0705-9. pmid:27591993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Healey P,
    2. Stager ML,
    3. Woodmass K,
    4. et al
    . Cultural adaptations to augment health and mental health services: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):8. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1953-x. pmid:28056967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Bernal G,
    2. Bonilla J,
    3. Bellido C
    . Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychosocial treatments with Hispanics. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1995;23(1):67–82. doi:10.1007/BF01447045. pmid:7759675
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    1. Wieling MRE
    Domenech-Rodríguez M Wieling E. Developing culturally appropriate, evidence-based treatments for interventions with ethnic minority populations. In: Wieling MRE, ed. Voices of Color: First-person Accounts of Ethnic Minority Therapists. Sage; 2004:313–333.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Wingood GM,
    2. DiClemente RJ
    . The ADAPT-ITT model: a novel method of adapting evidence-based HIV Interventions. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;47(Suppl 1):S40–S46. doi:10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181605df1. pmid:18301133
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Wilson BDM,
    2. Miller RL
    . Examining strategies for culturally grounded HIV prevention: a review. AIDS Educ Prev. 2003;15(2):184–202. doi:10.1521/aeap.15.3.184.23838. pmid:12739794
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Gray M,
    2. Plath D,
    3. Webb SA
    . Evidence-based Social Work: A Critical Stance. Routledge; 2009.
  33. 33.↵
    1. Aarons GA,
    2. Hurlburt M,
    3. Horwitz SM
    . Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(1):4–23. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7. pmid:21197565
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Yang LH,
    2. Chen F,
    3. Sia KJ,
    4. et al
    . “What matters most:” a cultural mechanism moderating structural vulnerability and moral experience of mental illness stigma. Soc Sci Med. 2014;103:84–93. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.009. pmid:24507914
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Yang LH,
    2. Kleinman A,
    3. Link BG,
    4. Phelan JC,
    5. Lee S,
    6. Good B
    . Culture and stigma: adding moral experience to stigma theory. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(7):1524–1535. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.11.013. pmid:17188411
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Yang LH,
    2. Poku OB,
    3. Misra S,
    4. et al
    . Stigma, structural vulnerability, and “what matters most” among women living with HIV in Botswana, 2017. Am J Public Health. 2021;111(7):1309–1317. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2021.306274. pmid:34110916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. McKenna SA,
    2. Main DS
    . The role and influence of key informants in community-engaged research: a critical perspective. Action Res. 2013;11(2):113–124. doi:10.1177/1476750312473342
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Yang LH,
    2. Lai GY,
    3. Tu M,
    4. et al
    . A brief anti-stigma intervention for Chinese immigrant caregivers of individuals with psychosis: adaptation and initial findings. Transcult Psychiatry. 2014;51(2):139–157. doi:10.1177/1363461513512015. pmid:24318864
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Poku OB,
    2. Ho-Foster AR,
    3. Entaile P,
    4. et al
    . ‘Mothers moving towards empowerment’ intervention to reduce stigma and improve treatment adherence in pregnant women living with HIV in Botswana: study protocol for a pragmatic clinical trial. Trials. 2020;21(1):832. doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04676-6. pmid:33028387
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Moullin JC,
    2. Dickson KS,
    3. Stadnick NA,
    4. Rabin B,
    5. Aarons GA
    . Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1. doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6. pmid:30611302
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Powell BJ,
    2. Waltz TJ,
    3. Chinman MJ,
    4. et al
    . A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1. pmid:25889199
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Yang LH,
    2. Eschliman EL,
    3. Mehta H,
    4. et al
    . A pilot pragmatic trial of a “what matters most”-based intervention targeting intersectional stigma related to being pregnant and living with HIV in Botswana. AIDS Res Ther. 2022;19(1):26. doi:10.1186/s12981-022-00454-3. pmid:35739534
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Glasgow RE,
    2. Vogt TM,
    3. Boles SM
    . Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–1327. doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322. pmid:10474547
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Glisson C,
    2. Schoenwald SK
    . The ARC organizational and community intervention strategy for implementing evidence-based children’s mental health treatments. Ment Health Serv Res. 2005;7(4):243–259. doi:10.1007/s11020-005-7456-1. pmid:16320107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Lennox L,
    2. Maher L,
    3. Reed J
    . Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):27. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0707-4. pmid:29426341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Moore JE,
    2. Mascarenhas A,
    3. Bain J,
    4. Straus SE
    . Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):110. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0637-1. pmid:28865479
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Shelton RC,
    2. Cooper BR,
    3. Stirman SW
    . The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39(1):55–76. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731. pmid:29328872
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Shelton RC,
    2. Lee M
    . Sustaining evidence-based interventions and policies: recent innovations and future directions in implementation science. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(S2):S132–S134. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304913. pmid:30785794
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Shelton RC,
    2. Chambers DA,
    3. Glasgow RE
    . An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8:134–134. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00134. pmid:32478025
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Hardy LJ,
    2. Hughes A,
    3. Hulen E,
    4. Figueroa A,
    5. Evans C,
    6. Begay RC
    . Hiring the experts: best practices for community-engaged research. Qual Res. 2016;16(5):592–600. doi:10.1177/1468794115579474. pmid:27833454
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    1. Hart A,
    2. Biggs S,
    3. Scott-Bottoms S,
    4. et al
    . Negotiating leadership in interdisciplinary co-productive research: a case study of an international community-based project between collaborators from South Africa and the United Kingdom. SAGE Open. 2020;10(4). doi:10.1177/2158244020971598
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    1. Ozano K,
    2. Khatri R
    . Reflexivity, positionality and power in cross-cultural participatory action research with research assistants in rural Cambodia. Educ Action Res. 2018;26(2):190–204. doi:10.1080/09650792.2017.1331860
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    1. Abimbola S,
    2. Asthana S,
    3. Montenegro C,
    4. et al
    . Addressing power asymmetries in global health: imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS Med. 2021;18(4):e1003604. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003604. pmid:33886540
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Rivera-Segarra E,
    2. Mascayano F,
    3. Alnasser L,
    4. et al
    . Global mental health research and practice: a decolonial approach. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(7):595–600. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00043-8. pmid:35397800
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 10 (6)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 10, No. 6
December 21, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Toward Meaningful Cultural Adaptation Across Implementation Stages: Lessons Learned From a Culturally Based HIV Stigma Intervention in Gaborone, Botswana
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Toward Meaningful Cultural Adaptation Across Implementation Stages: Lessons Learned From a Culturally Based HIV Stigma Intervention in Gaborone, Botswana
Ohemaa B. Poku, Evan L. Eschliman, Rayna Y. Wang, Shathani Rampa, Haitisha Mehta, Patlo Entaile, Tingyu Li, Valerie W. Jackson, Ari Ho-Foster, Michael B. Blank, Lawrence H. Yang
Global Health: Science and Practice Dec 2022, 10 (6) e2200232; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00232

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Toward Meaningful Cultural Adaptation Across Implementation Stages: Lessons Learned From a Culturally Based HIV Stigma Intervention in Gaborone, Botswana
Ohemaa B. Poku, Evan L. Eschliman, Rayna Y. Wang, Shathani Rampa, Haitisha Mehta, Patlo Entaile, Tingyu Li, Valerie W. Jackson, Ari Ho-Foster, Michael B. Blank, Lawrence H. Yang
Global Health: Science and Practice Dec 2022, 10 (6) e2200232; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00232
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • EXPLORATION AND PREPARATION
    • IMPLEMENTATION
    • SUSTAINMENT
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Funding
    • Author contributions
    • Competing interests
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The Case for Using a Behavior Change Model to Design Interventions to Promote Respectful Maternal Care
  • Does the Current Global Health Agenda Lack Vision?
  • Networks of Care: An Approach to Improving Maternal and Newborn Health
Show more COMMENTARY

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Health Topics
    • HIV/AIDS
US AIDJohns Hopkins Center for Communication ProgramsUniversity of Alberta

Follow Us On

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • GH Journals Database

About

  • About GHSP
  • Advisory Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2023 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire