iLookOut, a web-based child abuse training for early childcare professionals (ECPs), has been shown to improve knowledge and attitudes related to correctly identifying and reporting suspected cases of child abuse. The overarching goal of the present study is to examine “what works for whom” for iLookOut in order to identify strategies for optimizing learner outcomes.

This prospective study enrolled 12,705 ECPs who completed iLookOut (November 2014–December 2018). We used structural equation models to test whether learner demographic and professional characteristics were differentially associated with implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability and appropriateness) and whether these mediated subsequent indicators of training effectiveness (i.e., gains in knowledge).

Consistent with previous research, individuals with lower baseline knowledge scores showed greater knowledge gains (β = −.57; p < .001). Greater knowledge gains were seen for learners who reported higher acceptability (β = .08; p < .001) or appropriateness (β = .14; p < .001). Implementation outcomes strongly associated with knowledge gains included acceptability for female learners and appropriateness for learners who had not completed high school or had >15 years of experience in childcare settings. Where mediation was found, for the majority of groups, appropriateness emerged as the driving mediator.

Implementation outcomes emerged as important drivers of knowledge change for most groups. The iLookOut Core Training’s use of a multimedia learning environment, video-based storylines, and game-based techniques were endorsed by learners and correlated with increases in knowledge. Future work should explore why aspects of the iLookOut training are rated as less acceptable or appropriate by some groups and what changes would improve efficacy for low performing learners.

We systematically reviewed implementation research targeting depression interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to assess gaps in methodological coverage.

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of depression interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome published through March 2019.

A total of 8714 studies were screened, 759 were assessed for eligibility, and 79 studies met inclusion criteria. Common implementation outcomes reported were acceptability (n = 50; 63.3%), feasibility (n = 28; 35.4%), and fidelity (n = 18; 22.8%). Only four studies (5.1%) reported adoption or penetration, and three (3.8%) reported sustainability. The Sub-Saharan Africa region (n = 29; 36.7%) had the most studies. The majority of studies (n = 59; 74.7%) reported outcomes for a depression intervention implemented in pilot researcher-controlled settings. Studies commonly focused on Hybrid Type-1 effectiveness-implementation designs (n = 53; 67.1), followed by Hybrid Type-3 (n = 16; 20.3%). Only 21 studies (26.6%) tested an implementation strategy, with the most common being revising professional roles (n = 10; 47.6%). The most common intervention modality was individual psychotherapy (n = 30; 38.0%). Common study designs were mixed methods (n = 27; 34.2%), quasi-experimental uncontrolled pre-post (n = 17; 21.5%), and individual randomized trials (n = 16; 20.3).

Existing research has focused on early-stage implementation outcomes. Most studies have utilized Hybrid Type-1 designs, with the primary aim to test intervention effectiveness delivered in researcher-controlled settings. Future research should focus on testing and optimizing implementation strategies to promote scale-up of evidence-based depression interventions in routine care. These studies should use high-quality pragmatic designs and focus on later-stage implementation outcomes such as cost, penetration, and sustainability.