Search

Background Tailored implementation approaches are touted as superior to standardized ones with the reasoning that tailored approaches afford opportunities to select strategies to resolve determinants of the local context. However, results from implementation trials on this topic are equivocal. Therefore, it is important to explore relevant contextual factors that function as determinants to evaluate if they are improved by tailoring and subsequently associated with changes in implementation outcomes (i.e., via statistical mediation) to better understand how tailoring achieves (or does not achieve) its effects. The present study examined the association between a tailored and standardized implementation approach, contextual factors that might mediate change, and a target implementation outcome in an initiative to implement measurement-based care (specifically the clinical integration of the Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] for depression) in a community mental health organization. Methods Using a cluster randomized control design, twelve community-based mental health clinics were assigned to a tailored or standardized implementation group. Clinicians completed a self-report battery assessing contextual factors that served as candidate mediators informed by the Framework for Dissemination at three time points: baseline, 5 months after active implementation support, and 10 months after sustainment monitoring. A subset of clinicians also participated in focus groups at 5 months. The routine use of the PHQ-9 (implementation outcome) was monitored during the 10-month sustainment period. Multi-level mediation analyses assessed the association between the implementation group and contextual factors and the association between contextual factors and PHQ-9 completion. Quantitative results were then elaborated by analyzing qualitative data from exemplar sites. Results Although tailored clinics outperformed standard clinics in terms of PHQ-9 completion at the end of active implementation, these group differences disappeared post sustainment monitoring. Perhaps related to this, no significant mediators emerged from our quantitative analyses. Exploratory qualitative analyses of focus group content emphasized the importance of support from colleagues, supervisors, and leadership when implementing clinical innovations in practice. Conclusions Although rates of PHQ-9 completion improved across the study, their sustained levels were roughly equivalent across groups and low overall. No mediators were established using quantitative methods; however, several partial quantitative pathways, as well as themes from the qualitative data, reveal fruitful areas for future research. Trial registration Standardized versus tailored implementation of measurement-based care for depression. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266134, first posted on October 16, 2014

Background Tailored implementation approaches are touted as more likely to support the integration of evidence-based practices. However, to our knowledge, few methodologies for tailoring implementations exist. This manuscript will apply a model-driven, mixed methods approach to a needs assessment to identify the determinants of practice, and pilot a modified conjoint analysis method to generate an implementation blueprint using a case example of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) implementation in a youth residential center. Methods Our proposed methodology contains five steps to address two goals: (1) identify the determinants of practice and (2) select and match implementation strategies to address the identified determinants (focusing on barriers). Participants in the case example included mental health therapists and operations staff in two programs of Wolverine Human Services. For step 1, the needs assessment, they completed surveys (clinician N = 10; operations staff N = 58; other N = 7) and participated in focus groups (clinician N = 15; operations staff N = 38) guided by the domains of the Framework for Diffusion [1]. For step 2, the research team conducted mixed methods analyses following the QUAN + QUAL structure for the purpose of convergence and expansion in a connecting process, revealing 76 unique barriers. Step 3 consisted of a modified conjoint analysis. For step 3a, agency administrators prioritized the identified barriers according to feasibility and importance. For step 3b, strategies were selected from a published compilation and rated for feasibility and likelihood of impacting CBT fidelity. For step 4, sociometric surveys informed implementation team member selection and a meeting was held to identify officers and clarify goals and responsibilities. For step 5, blueprints for each of pre-implementation, implementation, and sustainment phases were generated. Results Forty-five unique strategies were prioritized across the 5 years and three phases representing all nine categories. Conclusions Our novel methodology offers a relatively low burden collaborative approach to generating a plan for implementation that leverages advances in implementation science including measurement, models, strategy compilations, and methods from other fields. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0761-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background With the current funding climate and need for advancements in implementation science, there is a growing demand for grantsmanship workshops to increase the quality and rigor of proposals. A group-based implementation science-focused grantsmanship workshop, the Implementation Development Workshop (IDW), is one methodology to address this need. This manuscript provides an overview of the IDW structure, format, and findings regarding its utility. Results The IDW methodology allows researchers to vet projects in the proposal stage in a structured format with a facilitator and two types of expert participants: presenters and attendees. The presenter uses a one-page handout and verbal presentation to present their proposal and questions. The facilitator elicits feedback from attendees using a format designed to maximize the number of unique points made. After each IDW, participants completed an anonymous survey assessing perceptions of the IDW. Presenters completed a funding survey measuring grant submission and funding success. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants who participated in both delivery formats. Mixed method analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of the IDW and compare the delivery formats. Of those who participated in an IDW (N = 72), 40 participated in face-to-face only, 16 in virtual only, and 16 in both formats. Thirty-eight (face-to-face n = 12, 35 % response rate; virtual n = 26, 66.7 % response rate) responded to the surveys and seven (15.3 % response rate), who had attended both formats, completed an interview. Of 36 total presenters, 17 (face-to-face n = 12, 42.9 % response rate; virtual n = 5, 62.9 % response rate) responded to the funding survey. Mixed method analyses indicated that the IDW was effective for collaboration and growth, effective for enhancing success in obtaining grants, and acceptable. A third (35.3 %) of presenters ultimately received funding for their proposal, and more than 80 % of those who presented indicated they would present again in the future. The IDW structure and facilitation process were found to be acceptable, with both formats rated as equally strong. Conclusions The IDW presents an acceptable and successful methodology for increasing competitiveness of implementation science grant proposals.

Background High-quality measurement is critical to advancing knowledge in any field. New fields, such as implementation science, are often beset with measurement gaps and poor quality instruments, a weakness that can be more easily addressed in light of systematic review findings. Although several reviews of quantitative instruments used in implementation science have been published, no studies have focused on instruments that measure implementation outcomes. Proctor and colleagues established a core set of implementation outcomes including: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability (Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 36:24–34, 2009). The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Instrument Review Project employed an enhanced systematic review methodology (Implement Sci 2: 2015) to identify quantitative instruments of implementation outcomes relevant to mental or behavioral health settings. Methods Full details of the enhanced systematic review methodology are available (Implement Sci 2: 2015). To increase the feasibility of the review, and consistent with the scope of SIRC, only instruments that were applicable to mental or behavioral health were included. The review, synthesis, and evaluation included the following: (1) a search protocol for the literature review of constructs; (2) the literature review of instruments using Web of Science and PsycINFO; and (3) data extraction and instrument quality ratings to inform knowledge synthesis. Our evidence-based assessment rating criteria quantified fundamental psychometric properties as well as a crude measure of usability. Two independent raters applied the evidence-based assessment rating criteria to each instrument to generate a quality profile. Results We identified 104 instruments across eight constructs, with nearly half (n = 50) assessing acceptability and 19 identified for adoption, with all other implementation outcomes revealing fewer than 10 instruments. Only one instrument demonstrated at least minimal evidence for psychometric strength on all six of the evidence-based assessment criteria. The majority of instruments had no information regarding responsiveness or predictive validity. Conclusions Implementation outcomes instrumentation is underdeveloped with respect to both the sheer number of available instruments and the psychometric quality of existing instruments. Until psychometric strength is established, the field will struggle to identify which implementation strategies work best, for which organizations, and under what conditions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0342-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.