This instrument was developed from the Program Sustainability Assessment and consists of 7 scales: Environmental Support, Funding Stability, Partnerships, Organizational Capacity, Program Evaluation, Program Adaptation, Communication with Public, Communications within the organization, and Communication with Government. All seven scales have a range of 1 to 4 (1- Not at all, 2- A little bit, 3- A moderate amount, 4- A lot). The seven sub-scales are combined to an overall score by averaging the sub-scale scores. The computed overall scales have a range of 1 to 4.

The WHODAS 2.0 assesses health-related difficulties across six different domains of functioning (cognition, mobility, self-care, socializing, life activities, and participation) that are linked conceptually and operationally to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The scores assigned to 12 items are - "none" (1), "mild" (2) "moderate" (3), "severe" (4) and "extreme" (5). The scores for the 12 items are summed into a total score ranging from 12 (least severe) to 50 (most severe). The last 3 items of the assessment collect the number of days the reported health-related difficulties impact the participants in the past 90 days.

The GAD-7 is a 7-item self-reported screening questionnaire that has been validated to assess for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in outpatient and primary care settings. The measure is scored from 0 to 21, with 0 meaning minimal anxiety and 21 meaning most severe anxiety.

The Quick Drinking Screen (QDS) is a 3-item questionnaire which asks about average drinking habits over the last ninety days. The responses are used to calculate the number of standard drinks consumed per week. In this measure, a standard drink is defined as 1-12 oz. regular can or glass of beer, or 1-5 oz. glass of regular wine, or 1 ½ oz. of regular proof hard liquor or spirits. Patients with alcohol use disorder will be asked to complete this measure as part of the baseline assessment and at every 3 months follow-up (a total of 5 assessment timepoints).

The EQ-VAS assess health-related quality of life. The EQ-VAS asks "how good or bad your health is today?" The scale ranges from 0 (worst health imaginable) to 100 (best health imaginable). The participants marks their number with an "X" on the scale and writes it in a box.

A measure used to assess problematic alcohol use. The Alcohol TLFB asks patients about their alcohol use in the past 30 days.

The BHIMC is an organizational measure of the level of behavioral health integration in medical practice settings. It evaluates policy, clinical practice and workforce dimensions of integration using mixed methods, i.e. combination of document review and observation.

The TDABC method measures costs of implementing the proposed model of care for depression and alcohol use disorders.The TDABC method will be used to determine the costs of the specific human, equipment, and facility resources used for delivering mental health care to patients as part of the model of care.

The NSOMS assesses patients' medical resource use that is not part of the intervention, including non-treatment therapy visits, physician visits, residential and/or hospital detoxification, hospital and emergency department visits, and medication use through patient self-report.

The NMED assesses the non-medical costs of depression. This measure is in Spanish and has been used in Latin America and used by our team at Javeriana.

The HPQ was developed by the World Health Organization, and assess the impact of depression on work performance (including sickness absence, presenteeism, and critical incidents).

Administrative interviews will assess implementation experiences, challenges to implementation and strategies used to facilitate implementation with different patient populations, changes made to workflow with use of the intervention, and salience of monitoring and feedback processes to inform providers and other stakeholders about the implementation success (approx. 5 at each site). The investigators will also assess the extent to which patients initiated use of the program via inquiry of their providers after learning of the program through patient channels.

The investigators will recruit and follow a sample of patients (approx. 5 at each site) during the implementation project to explore feasibility issues regarding use, barriers and facilitating strategies for using the program, optimal dissemination strategies for promoting use of the program, and overall experiences using the program over time. These patient participants will be encouraged to document their experiences with the mental health service delivery model in an ongoing manner (e.g., note jotting, pictures, audio recording).

Provider interviews will assess implementation experiences, challenges to implementation and strategies used to facilitate implementation with different patient populations, changes made to workflow with use of the intervention, and salience of monitoring and feedback processes to inform providers and other stakeholders about the implementation success (approx. 5 at each site). The investigators will also assess the extent to which patients initiated use of the program via inquiry of their providers after learning of the program through patient channels.

The COVID-19 Impact Survey is a self-reported questionnaire developed by the NIMH U19 Scale-Up Hubs and will assess the impact of COVID-19 among patients, providers, and administrators enrolled in this study. Given the unknown and widespread implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia, it is critical to understand the context of COVID-19 for interpreting the study's findings.

Providers at partnering primary care sites were all offered the opportunity to complete the implementation context and outcome measure in this research project at the time of implementation launch and at designated timepoints thereafter.

Administrative staff at partnering primary care sites were all offered the opportunity to complete the implementation context and outcome measure in this research project at the time of implementation launch and at designated timepoints thereafter.

Total of all reporting groups

Socioeconomic stratification in Colombia is classified based on the residential neighborhood from 1-6, with 6 being the wealthiest and 1 the poorest. Official stratum in Colombia is found according to information on the participant's utility bill.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure is not administered to providers and administrative staff.

This measure consists of 8 scales: Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Reach/Access, Organizational climate, Leadership in Implementing, and General Leadership Skills. All eight scales have a range of 1 to 4 (1- Not at all, 2- A little bit, 3- A moderate amount, 4- A lot).

The study implementation timeline was designed to have staggered launch dates for the six sites. Specifically, Javesalud (Site 1) and Santa Rosa (Site 2) launched first and were able to complete all follow-ups. Tundama (Site 3) was only able to complete through 18-month follow-ups. Guasca (Site 4) and Armero (Site 5) were only able to complete through 12-month follow-ups. Soacha (Site 6) was only able to complete through the 6-month follow-ups.

This measure consists of 9 scales: 1) Adoption, Appropriateness, Acceptability, Feasibility, Reach/Access, Organizational climate, Leadership in Implementing, General Leadership Skills, and Knowledge. All nine scales have a range of 1 to 4 (1- Not at all, 2- A little bit, 3- A moderate amount, 4- A lot).

The study implementation timeline was designed to have staggered launch dates for the six sites. Specifically, Javesalud (Site 1) and Santa Rosa (Site 2) launched first and were able to complete all follow-ups. Tundama (Site 3) was only able to complete through 18-month follow-ups. Guasca (Site 4) and Armero (Site 5) were only able to complete through 12-month follow-ups. Soacha (Site 6) was only able to complete through the 6-month follow-ups.

This instrument was developed from the Program Sustainability Assessment and consists of 7 scales: Environmental Support, Partnerships, Organizational Capacity, Program Evaluation, Program Adaptation, Communication with Public, and Communications within the organization. All scales have a range of 1 to 4 (1- Not at all, 2- A little bit, 3- A moderate amount, 4- A lot). The seven sub-scales are combined to an overall score by averaging the sub-scale scores. The computed overall scales have a range of 1 to 4.

The study implementation timeline was designed to have staggered launch dates for the six sites. For providers/staff, not all sites completed 18 and 24-month follow-up assessments. Also, baseline data is collected prior to site implementation launch. Some providers/administrators consented and provided data (at various follow-up times) after baseline implementation data collection took place at the sites.

This instrument was developed from the Program Sustainability Assessment and consists of 7 scales: Environmental Support, Funding Stability, Partnerships, Organizational Capacity, Program Evaluation, Program Adaptation, Communication with Public, Communications within the organization, and Communication with Government. All seven scales have a range of 1 to 4 (1- Not at all, 2- A little bit, 3- A moderate amount, 4- A lot). The seven sub-scales are combined to an overall score by averaging the sub-scale scores. The computed overall scales have a range of 1 to 4.

The study implementation timeline was designed to have staggered launch dates for the six sites. For providers/staff, not all sites completed 18 and 24-month follow-up assessments. Also, baseline data was collected prior to site implementation launch. Some providers/administrators consented and provided data (at various follow-up times) after baseline implementation data collection took place at the sites.

A measure with 8 items used to assess depression. The total score of the scale ranges from 0 to 24, with 0 representing no significant depressive symptoms and 24 representing the most severe depressive symptoms.

Only patient participants with a depression diagnosis completed the PHQ assessment at all timepoints. The number of participants analyzed varies at each assessment timepoint due to participants unable to reach during the window of follow-up and participants who withdrew from the study.

The WHODAS 2.0 assesses health-related difficulties across six different domains of functioning (cognition, mobility, self-care, socializing, life activities, and participation) that are linked conceptually and operationally to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The scores assigned to 12 items are - "none" (1), "mild" (2) "moderate" (3), "severe" (4) and "extreme" (5). The scores for the 12 items are summed into a total score ranging from 12 (least severe) to 50 (most severe). The last 3 items of the assessment collect the number of days the reported health-related difficulties impact the participants in the past 90 days.

The number of participants analyzed differs at each assessment timepoint due to a number of participants who were unable to reach during the designated window of assessment and participants who actively withdrew from the study for various non-safety related reasons.

The GAD-7 is a 7-item self-reported screening questionnaire that has been validated to assess for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in outpatient and primary care settings. The measure is scored from 0 to 21, with 0 meaning minimal anxiety and 21 meaning most severe anxiety.

Number of participants analyzed differ at each assessment timepoint because some participants were unable to be reached during the designated window of follow-up and some participants withdrew from the study.

The Quick Drinking Screen (QDS) is a 3-item questionnaire which asks about average drinking habits over the last ninety days. The responses are used to calculate the number of standard drinks consumed per week. In this measure, a standard drink is defined as 1-12 oz. regular can or glass of beer, or 1-5 oz. glass of regular wine, or 1 ½ oz. of regular proof hard liquor or spirits. Patients with alcohol use disorder will be asked to complete this measure as part of the baseline assessment and at every 3 months follow-up (a total of 5 assessment timepoints).

The overall number of participants is different from the overall number of the patients arm, because this assessment was only administered to patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. There are different numbers of participants analyzed at each timepoint due to a number of participants who were unable to be reached in the designated window of follow-up and who withdrew from the study.

The EQ-5D. The EQ-5D is a standardized instrument that has been widely used and validated within Spanish speaking populations from several countries in Latin America, and assesses 5 key dimensions of health.

The EQ-VAS assess health-related quality of life. The EQ-VAS asks "how good or bad your health is today?" The scale ranges from 0 (worst health imaginable) to 100 (best health imaginable). The participants marks their number with an "X" on the scale and writes it in a box.

A measure used to assess problematic alcohol use. The Alcohol TLFB asks patients about their alcohol use in the past 30 days.

The BHIMC is an organizational measure of the level of behavioral health integration in medical practice settings. It evaluates policy, clinical practice and workforce dimensions of integration using mixed methods, i.e. combination of document review and observation.

The TDABC method measures costs of implementing the proposed model of care for depression and alcohol use disorders.The TDABC method will be used to determine the costs of the specific human, equipment, and facility resources used for delivering mental health care to patients as part of the model of care.

The NSOMS assesses patients' medical resource use that is not part of the intervention, including non-treatment therapy visits, physician visits, residential and/or hospital detoxification, hospital and emergency department visits, and medication use through patient self-report.

The NMED assesses the non-medical costs of depression. This measure is in Spanish and has been used in Latin America and used by our team at Javeriana.

The HPQ was developed by the World Health Organization, and assess the impact of depression on work performance (including sickness absence, presenteeism, and critical incidents).

Administrative interviews will assess implementation experiences, challenges to implementation and strategies used to facilitate implementation with different patient populations, changes made to workflow with use of the intervention, and salience of monitoring and feedback processes to inform providers and other stakeholders about the implementation success (approx. 5 at each site). The investigators will also assess the extent to which patients initiated use of the program via inquiry of their providers after learning of the program through patient channels.

The investigators will recruit and follow a sample of patients (approx. 5 at each site) during the implementation project to explore feasibility issues regarding use, barriers and facilitating strategies for using the program, optimal dissemination strategies for promoting use of the program, and overall experiences using the program over time. These patient participants will be encouraged to document their experiences with the mental health service delivery model in an ongoing manner (e.g., note jotting, pictures, audio recording).

Provider interviews will assess implementation experiences, challenges to implementation and strategies used to facilitate implementation with different patient populations, changes made to workflow with use of the intervention, and salience of monitoring and feedback processes to inform providers and other stakeholders about the implementation success (approx. 5 at each site). The investigators will also assess the extent to which patients initiated use of the program via inquiry of their providers after learning of the program through patient channels.

The COVID-19 Impact Survey is a self-reported questionnaire developed by the NIMH U19 Scale-Up Hubs and will assess the impact of COVID-19 among patients, providers, and administrators enrolled in this study. Given the unknown and widespread implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia, it is critical to understand the context of COVID-19 for interpreting the study's findings.