Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:10:03.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2025

Abdulai Jawo Bah*
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, University of Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Haja Ramatulai Wurie
Affiliation:
College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, University of Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Mohamed Samai
Affiliation:
College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, University of Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Rebecca Horn
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK
Alastair Ager
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK
*
Corresponding author: Abdulai Jawo Bah; Email: 17011360@qmu.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries like Sierra Leone, there is a significant gap in the treatment of perinatal mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression and somatization. This study explored the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted Problem-Solving Therapy – Friendship Bench Intervention (PST-FBI) delivered by nonspecialists, mother-to-mother support groups (MMSGs), to perinatal women experiencing psychological distress. MMSGs provide 4 weeks of home-based, individual PST-FBI, followed by a peer-led group session called col at sacul (circle of serenity). The intervention targeted peri-urban pregnant women and new mothers screened for psychological distress. This was a two-armed, pre–post, waitlist-controlled study that employed the Sierra Leone Perinatal Psychological Distress Scale (SLPPDS) to screen and measure their outcomes. Feasibility and acceptability were examined through in-depth interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, analyzed thematically, while preliminary effectiveness was evaluated with chi-squared analysis for categorical and t-test for continuous variables. Twenty of the 25 women completed all four PST-FBI sessions delivered by five MMSGs. The individual PST and the peer-led session were viewed as beneficial for problem-sharing and skill building. The SLPPDS scores significantly dropped by 58.9% (17.1–8.4) in the intervention group, while the control group showed a 31.6% (18.0–12.3) decrease. The intervention’s effect size was d = 0.40 (p < 0.05). The MMSG-led PST-FBI, including the col at sacul session, proved feasible, acceptable and with preliminary effectiveness in improving the mental health of peri-urban pregnant women and new mothers in Sierra Leone. Further randomized-controlled trials are recommended before nationwide implementation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0), which permits re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© Queen Margaret University, 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Intervention summary of contents

Figure 1

Table 2. CFIR implementation parameters

Figure 2

Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics of perinatal women (n = 39)

Figure 3

Figure 1. Flow chart of the perinatal women in the pilot study.

Figure 4

Figure 2. Mean SLPPDS score for the intervention and control group.

Supplementary material: File

Bah et al. supplementary material

Bah et al. supplementary material
Download Bah et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.8 MB

Author comment: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit our manuscript titled “Feasibility, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of a Culturally Adapted Non-Specialist Delivery Problem-Solving Therapy-Friendship Bench Intervention for Perinatal Psychological Distress in Sierra Leone” for consideration for publication in the Global Mental Health Journal.

Abstract:

[Background

There is a notable treatment gap for perinatal mental disorders in low—and middle-income countries. This study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a culturally adapted Problem-Solving Therapy—Friendship Bench Intervention (PST-FBI) delivered by non-specialists through Mother-to-Mother Support Groups (MMSGs) in Sierra Leone.

Method

MMSGs provided four weeks of home-based PST-FBI to peri-urban perinatal women screened for psychological distress. We evaluated psychological distress levels pre- and post-using the Sierra Leone Perinatal Psychological Distress Scale (SLPPDS) and explored the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention through in-depth interviews.

Results

Twenty of twenty-five women completed all four PST-FBI sessions delivered through five separate MMSGs. For participants in the intervention arm there was a significant reduction pre- to post- in mean SLPPDS score - from 17.1(5.3) to 8.4(7.7) (corresponding to 58.9% decrease in symptoms). Scores for the control arm also reduced pre- to post-, but to a lesser degree: from 18.0(6.5) to 12.3(8.2) (representing a 31.6% decrease in reported symptoms). The estimated effect size of the intervention was d=0.40 (p<.05).

Conclusion

The MMSG-delivered PST-FBI, including the col at sacul group session, proved feasible, acceptable, and effective in enhancing the mental well-being of peri-urban perinatal women in Sierra Leone.]

This study addresses a critical gap in the treatment of perinatal mental health disorders in low- and middle-income countries, specifically focusing on the implementation of a culturally adapted Problem-Solving Therapy – Friendship Bench Intervention delivered by non-specialists through Mother-to-Mother Support Groups in Sierra Leone. The findings demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of the intervention in improving the mental well-being of peri-urban pregnant women and new mothers.

We believe that this research contributes valuable insights to the field of global mental health and has significant implications for future interventions targeting perinatal psychological distress in resource-limited settings.

We confirm that this manuscript has not been submitted for publication elsewhere and that all authors have approved the submission to the Global Mental Health Journal.

Thank you for considering our manuscript for publication. We look forward to the opportunity to share our findings with the readers of the Global Mental Health Journal.

Sincerely

Abdulai Jawo Bah

Review: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article on the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a problem-solving therapy, specifically an adaption of the Friendship Bench Intervention, implemented by Mother to Mother Support Groups in Sierra Leone. This manuscript is generally well written and addresses an important topic- how to successfully integrate a problem-solving therapy into existing systems to effectively engage women and treat perinatal distress in under serviced and under researched communities of perinatal women in West Africa. There are some important ways the manuscript could be improved which I detail below as major and minor concerns.

Major points

- One of the key gaps in the introduction that justifies the need for this study has to do with the integration of evidence-based therapies like Friendship Bench into primary care systems. However, there is a lot of existing literature on integration, including in maternal care systems, and this is not summarized, cited, critiqued or explored. This makes it difficult to really understand specifically how this study builds on current knowledge and the additional gap it answers

- Relatedly, more information on the state of knowledge on mental health, perinatal health, and existing needs and services in Sierra Leone more broadly would be helpful in the introduction. The location specific details provided in the methods are great for context, but the introduction doesn’t necessarily lay out the gap in knowledge specific to Sierra Leone in the introduction. For instance, what of the global mental health literature on mental health service integration may or may not be generalizable to Sierra Leone given specifics of the mental health system and other cultural and contextual factors in this location?

- The authors say that the FBI has been culturally adapted to Sierra Leone and provide a citation. However, I am not able to locate the article (perhaps it is in press?) It would be helpful to at least provide a brief summary of key points from that article so it’s clear what has been changed to fit the context to the reader of the article. For instance, there are 4 sessions in this intervention, but I believe the original FBI had six. What content was cut or changed and why was this change made? Based on the Supplemental materials, I think three sessions from FBI may have been combined into one, but I’m not totally clear as the rows in this table are listed as steps and not sessions and the original FBI isn’t in the table to compare to. There are also things that are listed in the adaptation column that I’m not clear are adaptations (listing all problems for instance, which is the key component of that first step; and active listening, which is an important part of FBI) so how were these adaptations?

o In addition, was the intervention manualized?

o Also, please clarify if the intention of the peer group meeting at the end of the intervention which is a part of the original FBI was meant to as in my understanding of the intervention model meant to be something that is sustained as a peer group, or it was just a one off meeting.

- There are multiple points in the discussion where the authors bring up very interesting findings that are both not discussed as part of the data collection or operationalization of the implementation domains and/or are not presented in the results as findings.

- Some information in the methods is repeated, or something is discussed in one paragraph without fully providing all needed information, and then in a later part of the methods is again discussed with additional detail. This jumping around makes it a bit difficult to follow and at times information can appear contradictory.

o For instance, at one point it says that sites were selected randomly and then in the participant section it says they were chosen to be accessible to Freetown, ensure women live in the areas of the MMSGS and close to the CHC? Then later there is discussion of zones and it’s not clear how that relates to the areas discussed of what defines a zone.

o Another example is that the SLPPD is initially described in the participant section but then it describes later in the recruitment section such that it’s repetitive and sometimes more or less information is given. Please also clearly and earlier state the total number of MMSGs that were trained (I believe it’s five in each of the two sites, based on what is said later, correct?)

o The MMSG’s are described in the beginning of the methods (bottom of page 8) but then later their training is again described and it’s not clear if you talking about what you trained them in or the UNICEF training. Supervision is also more cursorily described and then latter throughout the paper more information is given on how this happened (or things like session notes and review of those notes are mentioned but not initially as a part of supervision and fidelity) It would be helpful if supervision wasn’t described in the training section but only in the intervention section (or vice versa) and if the number of MMSGs trained was described in the training section).

- I’m a bit unclear on how recruitment happened exactly. Did the research team go house to house and implement the questionnaire (it references a household survey). But if that’s the case, how was it that later women couldn’t be found due to improper addresses (was the relocation just not recorded well or with enough detail to re find them? Or were they recruited at a clinic or another point in the community?)

- More detail is needed on how the qualitative data was analyzed

- The flow of the results is a bit confusing to me given the set up in the methods of the implementation domains under focus. How does uptake fit into the domains as defined in table 1, and why is it a separate section and how was it operationalized? I’m also not clear why if the caul au sal is a part of the intervention why findings on this were separated from the other findings on implementation?

- Also in the fidelity section, what is described feels more like methods and then it’s not clear what the actual findings are around adherence to protocol and the evidence for or against fidelity that was actually found.

- There are multiple cases of findings being presented in the discussion that are never brought up in the results (or described as aspects of implementation to be assessed in the methods). For instance, the idea that it was a part of the study to look at feasibility of recruitment and that it was done in 10 days. Another example is the finding that women didn’t visit the provider at first, but then later did (if this is a finding about implementation it should be presented in the findings section and it should be clear how this information was ascertained). The information about eye movements to indicate issues of fearing their partner is another example of this, as is the description of pictorial charts for discussing problems (or is this referring to the pictorial aid for answering the distress scale?)

- The limitations are not thoroughly enough considered and discussed in the discussion. For instance, how about the rigor and quality of your qualitative data? Do you think saturation was reached in your qualitative findings?

Minor points

Abstract

- At some points in the manuscripts, the authors rightly I think describe this study as producing evidence of preliminary effectiveness. However, in the abstract and parts of the introduction, they just talk about effectiveness of the intervention. Please revise this language as with a small pilot that’s not powered it isn’t appropriate to consider this evidence of effectiveness.

- In the methods portion of the abstract, please describe the design of the study (two armed, pre post controlled study). It is not clear until the results that there is a control arm.

- There is in error in the results of the abstracts where it says “results was viewed by [who?].” I agree that question should be answered and the vestige of this comment presumably from an editing phase should be removed.

- In the abstract when col at sacul is discussed, it is not yet clear to the reader what this is.

Introduction

- Paragraph 2. It is unclear if you are talking about the global literature here (inclusive of high-income countries) or just LMIC settings. It would be helpful to make this paragraph specific to the limitations and barriers encountered in implementing mental health interventions in low resource settings, particularly within West Africa.

- At the end of page 4, the end of that paragraph starts to talk about evidence for task shifting interventions, but then this is the main topic of the next paragraph. The flow of this is a bit hard to follow (unclear why there is a paragraph break there).

- On the bottom of page 5, it’s stated that PST was found to be effective compared to antidepressants. Given antidepressants are generally an effective intervention, does this mean PST was found to be as effective? More effective? Please clarify.

Methods

- MHGap is being implemented in Sierra Leone in the setting where you are working. To what services are people being referred if they are identified as needing a therapy like PST currently? Do services already exist that are similar to FBI or is this a new intervention in this context?

- While a mixed methods design is specified, there does not seem to be any integration of the qualitative and quantitative data which is a key component of a mixed methods study. Please either remove this statement or take the step to integrate your quant and qual findings in the results.

- I understand a formal power calculation was not done as this was a pilot study, but what was the rational for the choice of a sample size of 50?

- How was new mother defined (how recently did she have to have given birth?)

- Was there an age criterion for the study (e.g., were only individuals 18 or older included?)

- Referring to people as MMSG (mother to mother support groups) feels a little strange (they are people, not groups?) Are they facilitators of MMSG? MMSG volunteers? Are MMSG paid?

- Please briefly say how you determined mental competency and a lack of learning disability to satisfy eligibility criteria.

- It is stated that the SLPPD has a sensitivity of 80 and specificity of 85.7, but a sensitivity and specificity of what? Identifying depression diagnoses? Cases of perinatal psychological distress that are clinically significant.

- I’m confused by the reference of an in-depth interview guide for interviews as a validated questionnaire. Was this a semi-structured guide or a structured more quantitative instrument?

- I find some of the descriptions and operationalizations of the implementation domains confusing. For instance, “The ease with which the perinatal women went through the PST- FBI” that sounds like feasibility to me more than acceptability? “Same procedures followed for all women” was how fidelity was operationalized, but if the same procedures were done but they were incorrect, that doesn’t seem to be fidelity to the model to me?

- The analysis is described as comparing intervention scores for the quantitative data, but It’s not clear if you are comparing participants to themselves over time or the control participants to the intervention participants.

- Were assessors blind to arm of the participants?

Results

- The flow chart shows women as being allocated to the groups, but women were not allocated, the site they lived in was allocated, correct? This should be rectified.

- If this program was for pregnant women and new mothers, why would someone be discontinued for giving birth?

- In the flow chart it says a woman was moved out due to violence. does this mean she left the area because of violence and was lost to follow up or did the research team exclude her because she was experiencing violence? If the later, it needs to be explained as a part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the study.

- The flow chart just says assessed, but I thought people were assessed at both mid intervention and the end of the intervention? Which time point is this assessment referring to?

- Why is the denominator 39 for the statistics in the participant characteristic category? Didn’t everyone get a baseline assessment regardless of if they were lost to follow up or not? Were demographics not assessed at baseline?

- I don’t think you should rely on p values to say if there are meaningful differences or not at baseline by arm given sthe mall sample. The marital status seems pretty different :45% of intervention single/divorced widowed vs. 26% of controls?

- Can the flexible delivery (that they could do sessions in the community or where the MMSG were) be described as part of the intervention in the methods? As it is, it just says there were supposed to be four weekly home visits, so the idea of the women going to the MMSG as part of the intervention came as a surprise to me in the results.

- A one way anova is referenced in the results but is not described as the method used in the methods section.

- I’m not clear why the findings from the 14 day assessment are never shown?

- Please add a label to the y axis in figure 2.

- Please remove the second heading of results right before table 2.

- Table 2 is a bit unclear in how it has a heading for characteristic and sometimes this is an original category and sometimes it describes the statistic presented in the cell (mean (sd)). Also, the actual mean and sd are presented as +/-, not in ( ).

Discussion

- A lot of attention is given to the change in the control group and possible reasons. I don’t quite understand the point about the educational component and how the women in the control may have been equipped with coping strategies or stress management techniques based on learning about the study? It seems more plausible to me that something not considered here could explain the control group decrease: regression to the mean.

- The last sentence of the first paragraph of the discussion about needing a multisectoral approach that addresses social determinants of health seems to be unrelated to the findings of this study and I’m unclear where it comes from and it isn’t explored meaningfully.

Review: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the invitation to review this study, which seeks to address an important mental health treatment gap in Sierra Leone.

Abstract

Maybe worthwhile rewriting the sentence to avoid the implication that stress is a disorder. The results presented in the abstract are only for the outcomes, whereas the title of the paper of also includes feasibility and acceptability, and this is also what is mentioned in the abstract conclusion.

The introductory section is very strong, with a good justification for the study in Sierra Leone.

Methods

The methods are appropriate for the study.

There were a lot of acronyms, and I couldn’t see the expanded version of MMG (line 39). Is this supposed to be MMSG?

Randomisation seems appropriate, though it would be important to state whether those who allocated to groups/carried out randomisation where blinded to the groups being allocated to.

It was good to see the process undertaken to develop a locally valid instrument for assessment of perinatal depression, as well as the adaptation of the intervention.

The intervention was described in a good amount of detail. I was unsure what the difference was between the Circle of Peace (CAS) and the main groups within which the intervention was delivered until when it was described in Results, so this could have come earlier. The terminology ‘Groups’ is slightly confusing in ‘MMSGs’ as these seem to be individual practitioners, rather than being a group intervention. I initially assumed that the CASs were designed to maintain the support more informally, but again in the results section it seems this was a one-off information gathering session. This could be clarified, otherwise any group element of the intervention would also presumably provide a degree of peer support.

Incidentally, it is interesting that privacy was valued, which could be seen as a strength over a group intervention (or the value of a mix).

The elements of checking in and addressing needs of higher risk individuals when identified was positive and demonstrated good field experience.

It is unusual not to provide any intervention at all for the control group. Does wait-list control mean that the control group will later get the FBI or not? May be worth discussing ethical issues whichever way.

The last quantitative assessment is measured at a short time-frame (intervention start + 28 days). A later (additional) assessment date would have provided a more meaningful indication of if the effect was sustained, and should be considered for the full trial.

Some quantitative measures for fidelity would be stronger methodologically, alongside qualitative.

Page 12, line 38; what does ‘intervention scores’ mean. Can you state which measure?

Results

The qualitative results are nicely presented with appropriate quotations. Were there any less-than-positive issues raised at all?

Quant results are presented nicely in the graph, but why were the results not presented for the mid-line (14 weeks) as well as baseline and end-line on the graph?

Discussion

The discussion is very clear in describing how these results will contribute to a successful full trial, and some of the practical issues of loss to follow up for example, that will need to be addressed.

Overall this is a well written and methodologically sound paper, and will provide a good base of information for a fill trial.

A few grammatical issues I noted:

There is a vertical line on Page 7, line 48.

There is a typo (’metal') in Table 1, line 16.

Recommendation: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Editor-in-Chief, Professor Chibanda

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to resubmit my manuscript titled “Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Culturally Adapted Non-Specialist Delivery Problem-Solving Therapy — Friendship Bench Intervention for Perinatal Psychological Distress in Sierra Leone” (Manuscript ID: [GMH-2024-0088]) after having carefully addressed the comments provided by you and the reviewers.

I would like to express my gratitude for the valuable feedback we received, which has significantly strengthened the manuscript. Below, I summarize the critical revisions made in response to the reviewers' comments:

Clarification of Methodology: We have expanded the methodology section to provide a more detailed description of the intervention, including a brief description of the Friendship Bench Intervention’s cultural adaptation and the eligibility criteria for perinatal women.

Statistical Analysis: In response to the request for statistical analysis, we have included additional details regarding our statistical methods, including the rationale for choosing Chi-squared tests and t-tests.

Discussion of Limitations: We have enhanced the discussion section and explicitly addressed the limitations of our study, including recall bias, as it was based on self-reporting and the limited sample size. We also discuss the implications of these limitations for interpreting our findings.

Additional References: We have revised the referencing style as per the GMH referencing guidelines shared by the Editor-in Chief, and incorporated several relevant studies to further contextualize our findings within the existing literature on perinatal mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries.

Formatting and Language: The manuscript has been thoroughly revised for grammatical accuracy and clarity, ensuring that it meets the journal’s standards for publication.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and hope it now meets your and the reviewers' expectations. Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work. We look forward to your feedback and hope for a favourable consideration of our manuscript.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Jawo Bah

Review: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the thoughtful responses.

I am happy with the edits made, which address the additional information I felt was needed, and the edits are appropriate.

[Note to the editor; in the review system, it was difficult to find the point-by-point responses to my earlier review, and it would have been much easier if it was available in the same place as the proof or under the ‘files’ tab.]

Review: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this manuscript. In general, I feel as though the authors have thoroughly addressed reviewer comments, with a few minor exceptions as detailed below.

Regarding the introduction and the prior identified need to incorporate the existing literature on mental health care integration, including in maternal care systems, I feel as though this has been partially addressed by the paragraph that the authors added ending on line 104. I find the flow of the paragraph within the introduction a bit challenging, as it is currently wedged between talking about PST and a conclusion that the treatment gap remains critical in Sierra Leone. Because it’s not well connected, it just isn’t fully clear why integration in maternal care in Sierra Leone is the right approach and what specific “further research is needed for PST into primary health services.” There is a treatment gap in Sierra Leone and existing research on PST and on integration, but what is the gap? For instance, what is unique about the system in Sierra Leone that makes other research not generalizable? What questions about integration have been answered well, but which ones have not? I believe there is very likely an important gap this study addresses, it just needs to be better explained and connected to what is already known and very clearly stated in the introduction.

Regarding adaption- I like the addition of Table 1 and find it very helpful. Perhaps what was adaptation vs. the standard model could be noted in that table? Also, please be careful of abbreviations (use only when necessary and make sure they are spelled out clearly the first time and can stand alone in a table so someone doesn’t have to go digging through the text to understand an abbreviation in the table) in table 1 and throughout the manuscript.

I also still think the steps of the qualitative analysis could be better described rather than just inductive deductive and used thematic content analysis. As it is, the process isn’t very transparent. In addition, while I think the authors did a nice job of discussion limitations related to the qualitative work and generalizability, I don’t think still that the rigor of the qualitative work there is discussed.

One final/minor point about fidelity. The authors in their response say this is happening through supportive supervision, but then they refer to page 12 lines 235-237 for text on this which talks about interviews and does not mention the supervision. Did the data from this come only from interviews or also from supervision notes?

For feasibility, the addition of the clinical trial considerations to the methods is helpful (page 12 lines 222-224). Did the authors set what they thought were acceptable targets for recruitment, eligibility and retention? were these determined prior to conducting the research?

I wish you the best of luck with this really important work and very much appreciate the revisions; i find the manuscript clear and strengthened.

Recommendation: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for these responsive revisions! I feel my concerns have been adequately addressed.

Recommendation: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a culturally adapted nonspecialist delivery Problem-Solving Therapy: Friendship Bench Intervention for perinatal psychological distress in Sierra Leone — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.