Table 3. Differences between trials in LMICs and US settings.
| LMICS n (%) | US n (%) | χ2 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial design | 0.00 | 1.00 | ||
| RCT | 18 (73.1%) | 9 (69.2%) | – | – |
| Quasi-experiment or pre/post | 7 (26.9%) | 4 (30.8%) | – | – |
| Age served | 2.51 | 0.113 | ||
| Child/Family | 11 (42.3%) | 9 (69.2%) | – | – |
| Adult | 15 (57.7%) | 4 (30.8%) | – | – |
| Intervention | 14.09 | 0.001 | ||
| EBT | 10 (38.5%) | 0 (0%) | 6.76 | 0.009 |
| Evidence-informed | 15 (57.7%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1.10 | 0.271 |
| Novel, community-driven | 1 (3.9%) | 9 (69.2%) | 16.00 | >0.001 |
| CHW primary role | 12.29 | 0.002 | ||
| Sole provider | 23 (88.5%) | 8 (61.5%) | 4.00 | 0.194 |
| Stepped care | 3 (11.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1.69 | 0.230 |
| Auxiliary | 0 (0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 11.56 | >0.001 |
| Implementation support described | ||||
| Training | 21 (80.8%) | 10 (76.9%) | 0.09 | 0.768 |
| Ongoing supervision | 19 (73.1%) | 6 (46.2%) | 2.73 | 0.098 |
| Fidelity monitoring | 11 (42.3%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0.48 | 0.485 |
LMICs = 26 trials, US = 13 trials