Evaluating the effectiveness of the Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA) in Peru: Mechanisms of individual and intergenerational change

About This Grant

PROJECT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT Recent advances in intervention research have revealed the promise of transdiagnostic, modular approaches implemented by lay paraprofessionals for the treatment of the most prevalent mental health concerns in settings affected by adversity (e.g., anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress), but to date, few effectiveness trials have examined the indirect effects of treatment on intergenerational and economic outcomes or moderators of treatment effectiveness. There is thus a critical need not only for the continued expansion of the evidence-basis for care in low-resource settings, but also for the evaluation of factors contributing to effectiveness across multiple dimensions to gain a better understanding of the sustainability, long-term benefits, and cost-effectiveness of these approaches. The current study will conduct a rigorous evaluation of an existing program, the Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA) with women (N=300) who are mothers of young children (ages 4-6). The trial will take place in the context of an integrated community care setting in Lima, Peru’s most populous and impoverished district, San Juan de Lurigancho. Our primary aims are to (1) evaluate the primary and indirect effects of CETA (2) examine moderators of treatment effectiveness, including implementation quality and neighborhood factors and (3) examine CETA’s cost effectiveness. Our central hypotheses are that (H1a) CETA will improve women’s mental health, intimate partner violence, and parenting and that (H1b) CETA will have indirect benefits for women’s economic outcomes and for their children’s adjustment. We also hypothesize (H2) that effectiveness will be enhanced by strong implementation quality and the presence of neighborhood promotive factors, and weakened by neighborhood disadvantage. Hypotheses will be evaluated using an RCT employing a longitudinal design with assessments at baseline (T1), post-test (T2), 6-month follow-up (T3) and 12-month follow-up (T4). Women will be randomized into the intervention condition (CETA + Enhanced Case Management [ECM]) or the comparison condition (ECM). Robust, multi-source (i.e., participant, therapist, supervisor, census data) and multi-method data (i.e., interview, observational assessment, google street view coding) will be gathered. The contribution will be significant by advancing research on both direct and long-term benefits of maternal mental health care for family systems, and is likely to provide important insights into the sustainability and cost effectiveness of these approaches. The expected outcome is an evidence-based, cost-effective, integrated approach to maternal mental health care that can be readily implemented by local organizations. Further, we anticipate that learnings from this project will respond to broader global public health concerns and provide opportunity for cross-context reciprocal innovation. Expanding the evaluation of CETA delivered in Spanish not only has advantages for the specific context under study, but provides an important foundation for addressing health disparities in Spanish- language mental health services in the US as well.