Search

Abstract Background The process of determining the best strategy for increasing the uptake of evidence-based practice might be improved through an understanding of relevant clinician-level factors. The Pathways to Comorbidity Care (PCC) training program (Louie E, et al., J Dual Diagnosis 17:304–12, 2021) aimed to facilitate integrated management of comorbid drug and alcohol and mental disorders amongst drug and alcohol clinicians. We hypothesised that uptake of integrated management of comorbidity following the implementation of the PCC program would be associated with clinician-level: (i) demographics (gender, education, experience), (ii) attitudes (evidence-based practice, therapist manuals, counselling self-efficacy), and (iii) organisational readiness to change. Methods Twenty clinicians participated in the 9-month PCC training program. Attitudes towards evidence-based practices and psychotherapist manuals, self-efficacy, and organisational readiness to change, along with demographics, were measured at baseline. At follow-up, change in Comorbidity Practice (CoP) scores related to integrated comorbidity management were obtained using a file audit checklist and categorised into high (at least 60% increase in CoP), medium or low (a decrease of − 20% or less in CoP). Clinician-level characteristics were examined across the implementation categories. Results There were no significant differences found between implementation groups on sociodemographic variables (p’s > 0.30), attitudes to evidence-based practices, attitudes to therapist manuals, and self-efficacy (p’s > 0.52). The high implementation group demonstrated significantly higher scores on leadership practices aspect of organisational readiness to change relative to the low and medium implementation group ((F(2, 16) = 3.63, p = 0.05; Cohen’s d = .31) but not on the other subscales (p’s > 0.07). Conclusions Confidence that leadership will play a positive role in the implementation process may improve effectiveness of comorbidity training programs for drug and alcohol clinicians. On the other hand, contrary to our hypothesis, counselling self-efficacy, evidence-based practice attitudes, attitudes towards therapist manuals, gender, education and experience were not distinguishing factors.

In substance use treatment settings, comorbid mental health problems can occur in up to 70% of people. An integrated approach for managing comorbidity, implementing evidence-based intervention in drug and alcohol settings, remains problematic. Technology can help in adopting evidence-based practice to implement effective treatment healthcare pathways. This study sought to examine aspects of tailored portal utilization (barriers and facilitators) by participants taking part in a program aimed at improving the implementation of evidence-based practice for comorbidity management Pathways to Comorbidity Care (PCC). Method A self-report questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were designed to measure clinician satisfaction with the PCC portal and e-resources throughout a 9-month intervention. An adapted version of the “Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and, Sustainability” (NASSS) framework facilitated discussion of the findings. Results Twenty participants from drug and alcohol services responded to all measures. Facilitators included: (i). clinician acceptance of the portal; (ii). guidance from the clinical supervisor or champion to encourage e-resource use. Barriers included: (i). complexity of the illness (condition) ; (ii). participants’ preference (adopter system) for face-to-face resources and training modes; and, (iii). lack of face-to-face training on how to use the portal ( technology and organization ). Conclusion Based on the NASSS framework, we identified several barriers and facilitators of the use of the portal including the complexity of illness, lack of face-to-face training, and clinician preference for training mediums. Recommendations include ongoing organizational support, in-house clinical supervision, and consultation with clinical providers to assist in the development of tailored e-health resources and open training opportunities on how to operate and effectively utilize these resources.

Background: The dissemination and adoption of research into clinical practice in health care settings is a complex and challenging process. Clinical champions have been increasingly used in health care to facilitate the implementation and adoption of evidence-based practice and to overcome organizational barriers. In relation to substance use and mental health disorders, translation of new evidence into practice is an ongoing challenge. The utilization of a clinical champion to motivate staff to implement evidence-based practice in these settings may improve treatment quality and reduce the burden of disease. We thus aimed to conduct a systematic review to examine the role and efficacy of clinical champions in the drug and alcohol and mental health settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search (1980-present) using the following databases: PubMed and PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified using reference searches of relevant reviews. Results: Thirteen separate studies were included in the final review. Clinical champions were typically selected rather than emergent, including clinical staff members engaging in a professional clinical role (e.g., physicians, psychologists, social workers). Training provided for these roles was often not stated. Clinical champions assisted with faster initiation and persistence in the application of novel interventions, facilitating overcoming system barriers, and enhanced staff engagement and motivation. Conclusions: In the substance use and mental health field, clinical champions appear to be an important component to facilitating practice changes. Future studies should provide specific details regarding attributes and training and also examine the relevant combination of personal characteristics and training sufficient to facilitate implementation of evidence-based practice in drug and alcohol and mental health settings. Plain language abstract Treatment delivery in drug and alcohol and mental health settings may not always be based on best available evidence. Organizational context and individual factors are important in determining whether new practices will be adopted. Passive approaches such as websites or treatment manuals do not necessarily lead to change in practice. The clinical champion model has been shown to be effective in aiding implementation of evidence-based practice in health care settings. However, there is limited evidence evaluating its use in drug and alcohol and mental health settings. The current review aims to synthesize and evaluate the use of clinical champions in implementation research in drug and alcohol and mental health settings. We found that clinical champions were typically clinical staff members engaging in a professional clinical role. Training provided for these roles was often limited. Clinical champions may assist with faster initiation and persistence in the application of novel interventions, facilitating overcoming system barriers, and enhanced staff engagement and motivation.

Abstract Background Public health agencies in the United States have engaged in abortion-related activities for nearly 50 years. Prior research indicates that, while most state health departments engage in some abortion-related work, their efforts reflect what is required by law rather than the breadth of core public health activities. In contrast, local health departments appear to engage in abortion-related activities less often but, when they do, initiate a broader range of activities. Methods This study aimed to: 1) describe the abortion-related activities undertaken by maternal and child health (MCH) and family planning professionals in state and local health departments; 2) understand how health departments approach their programmatic work on abortion, and 3) examine the facilitators and barriers to whether and how abortion work is implemented. Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted key informant interviews with 29 professionals working in 22 state and local health departments across the U.S. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using an iterative approach. Results MCH and family planning professionals described a range of abortion-related activities undertaken within their health departments. We identified three approaches to this work: those mandated strictly by law or policy; those initiated when mandated by law but informed by public health principles (e.g., scientific accuracy, expert engagement, lack of bias, promoting access to care) in implementation; and those initiated by professionals within the department to meet identified needs. More state health departments engaged in activities when mandated, and more local health departments initiated activities based on identified needs. Key barriers and facilitators included political climate, funding opportunities and restrictions, and departmental leadership. Conclusions Although state health departments are tasked with implementing legally-required abortion-related activities, some agencies bring public health principles to their mandated work. Efforts are needed to engage public health professionals in developing and implementing best practices around engaging in abortion-related activities.

Objective: In recent years, in an attempt to counter stigma and increase empathy, public education campaigns have encouraged people to share their personal abortion stories. This exploratory study sought to document negative and positive experiences of those who have shared their abortion stories publicly. Study design: We conducted an anonymous online survey of people who have shared their abortion story publicly (N = 88), recruited via partners affiliated with two abortion story-sharing campaigns. The survey asked about the context in which respondents shared their abortion story, any negative and positive experiences online and in “real life” as a result of story sharing, and any problems or benefits resulting from these experiences. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and categorizing responses to open-ended questions. Results: Sixty percent of respondents reported experiencing harassment and other negative incidents after sharing their story publicly. These experiences contributed to emotional stress, problems with loved ones and difficulties at work and/or school. These harms were reported even by many respondents who used only a first name or alias when sharing their story. Despite this, positive experiences as a result of story sharing were reported by four out of five respondents and motivated many to continue sharing their story. Conclusions: This exploratory study indicates that many people who share their abortion story publicly find it to be an empowering, rewarding experience. Yet they also experience harassment and threats at high rates. Future research should explore both positive and negative experiences in more depth. Implications: Sharing one's personal abortion story as part of a public education campaign can be a positive, empowering experience. Nevertheless, policymakers, journalists and reproductive health advocates should recognize the potential harms experienced by people who share their abortion story publicly and consider measures to support these individuals.