The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with distress experienced by physicians during their first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) triage decisions.

An online survey was administered to physicians licensed in New York State.

Of the 164 physicians studied, 20.7% experienced severe distress during their first COVID-19 triage decisions. The mean distress score was not significantly different between physicians who received just-in-time training and those who did not (6.0 ± 2.7 vs 6.2 ± 2.8; P = 0.550) and between physicians who received clinical guidelines and those who did not (6.0 ± 2.9 vs 6.2 ± 2.7; P = 0.820). Substantially increased odds of severe distress were found in physicians who reported that their first COVID-19 triage decisions were inconsistent with their core values (adjusted odds ratio, 6.33; 95% confidence interval, 2.03-19.76) and who reported having insufficient skills and expertise (adjusted odds ratio 2.99, 95% confidence interval 0.91-9.87).

Approximately 1 in 5 physicians in New York experienced severe distress during their first COVID-19 triage decisions. Physicians with insufficient skills and expertise, and core values misaligned to triage decisions are at heightened risk of experiencing severe distress. Just-in-time training and clinical guidelines do not appear to alleviate distress experienced by physicians during their first COVID-19 triage decisions.

Few studies provide clear rationale for and the reception of adaptations of evidence-based interventions. To address this gap, we describe the context-dependent adaptations in critical time intervention-task shifting (CTI-TS), a manualized recovery program for individuals with psychosis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Santiago, Chile. Implications of the adaptations – incorporating a task-shifting approach and modifying the mode of community-based service delivery – are examined from users' perspectives.

A secondary analysis of in-depth interviews with CTI-TS users (n = 9 in Brazil; n = 15 in Chile) was conducted. Using the framework method, we thematically compared how participants from each site perceived the main adapted components of CTI-TS.

Users of both sites appreciated the task-shifting worker pair to provide personalized, flexible, and relatable support. They wanted CTI-TS to be longer and experienced difficulty maintaining intervention benefits in the long-term. In Chile, stigma and a perceived professional hierarchy toward the task-shifting providers were more profound than in Brazil. Engagement with community-based services delivery in homes and neighborhoods (Chile), and at community mental health centers (Brazil) were influenced by various personal, familial, financial, and social factors. Uniquely, community violence was a significant barrier to engagement in Brazil.

CTI-TS’ major adaptations were informed by the distinct mental health systems and social context of Santiago and Rio. Evaluation of user experiences with these adaptations provides insights into implementing and scaling-up task-shifting and community-oriented interventions in the region through the creation of specialized roles for the worker pair, targeting sustained intervention effects, and addressing socio-cultural barriers.