Search

Background Understanding the costs and economic benefits of implementation has been identified by policymakers and researchers as critical to increase the uptake and sustainment of evidence-based practices, but this topic remains relatively understudied. Conducting team science with health economists has been proposed as a solution to increase economic evaluation in implementation science; however, these recommendations ignore the differences in goals and perspectives in these two fields. Our recent qualitative research identified that implementation researchers predominantly approach health economists to examine costs, whereas the majority of health economists expressed limited interest in conducting economic evaluations and a desire to be more integrated within implementation science initiatives. These interviews pointed to challenges in establishing fruitful partnerships when health economists are relegated to the “Third Aim” (i.e., lowest-priority research objective) in implementation science projects by their research partners. Discussion In this debate paper, we argue that implementation researchers and health economists need to focus on team science research principles to expand capacity to address pressing research questions that cut across the two fields. Specifically, we use the four-phase model of transdisciplinary research to outline the goals and processes needed to build capacity in this area (Hall et al., Transl Behav Med 2:415–30, 2012). The first phase focuses on the development of transdisciplinary research teams, including identifying appropriate partners (e.g., considering policy or public health researchers in addition to health economists) and building trust. The conceptual phase focuses on strategies to consider when developing joint research questions and methodology across fields. In the implementation phase, we outline the effective processes for conducting research projects, such as team learning. Finally, in the translation phase, we highlight how a transdisciplinary approach between health economists and implementation researchers can impact real-world practice and policy. Summary The importance of investigating the economic impact of evidence-based practice implementation is widely recognized, but efforts have been limited due to the challenges in conducting team science across disciplines. Training in team science can help advance transdisciplinary efforts, which has the potential to increase the rigor and impact of economic evaluations in implementation science while expanding the roles taken by health economists.

Background Sustained delivery of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) is essential to addressing the public health and economic impacts of youth mental health problems, but is complicated by the limited and fragmented funding available to youth mental health service agencies (hereafter, “service agencies”). Strategic planning tools are needed that can guide these service agencies in their coordination of sustainable funding for EBTs. This protocol describes a mixed-methods research project designed to (1) develop and (2) evaluate our novel fiscal mapping process that guides strategic planning efforts to finance the sustainment of EBTs in youth mental health services. Method Participants will be 48 expert stakeholder participants, including representatives from ten service agencies and their partners from funding agencies (various public and private sources) and intermediary organizations (which provide guidance and support on the delivery of specific EBTs). Aim 1 is to develop the fiscal mapping process: a multi-step, structured tool that guides service agencies in selecting the optimal combination of strategies for financing their EBT sustainment efforts. We will adapt the fiscal mapping process from an established intervention mapping process and will incorporate an existing compilation of 23 financing strategies. We will then engage participants in a modified Delphi exercise to achieve consensus on the fiscal mapping process steps and gather information that can inform the selection of strategies. Aim 2 is to evaluate preliminary impacts of the fiscal mapping process on service agencies’ EBT sustainment capacities (i.e., structures and processes that support sustainment) and outcomes (e.g., intentions to sustain). The ten agencies will pilot test the fiscal mapping process. We will evaluate how the fiscal mapping process impacts EBT sustainment capacities and outcomes using a comparative case study approach, incorporating data from focus groups and document review. After pilot testing, the stakeholder participants will conceptualize the process and outcomes of fiscal mapping in a participatory modeling exercise to help inform future use and evaluation of the tool. Discussion This project will generate the fiscal mapping process, which will facilitate the coordination of an array of financing strategies to sustain EBTs in community youth mental health services. This tool will promote the sustainment of youth-focused EBTs.

Additional file 4. Analysis plan for A-CRA Financing.

Additional file 1: StaRI checklist for Fiscal MappingR0.

Additional file 3. Survey items for A-CRA Financing.

Additional file 2. Interview protocols for A-CRA Financing.

Additional file 1. StaRI checklist for A-CRA Financing.

Additional file 2: TIDieR checklist for Fiscal MappingR0.

Background Child maltreatment is a major public issue in the United States, yet most children affected by abuse or neglect never engage in evidence-based practices (EBP) for child mental health. Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs’) are uniquely situated to serve as Family Navigators who connect children impacted by maltreatment to appropriate EBPs. In fact, the CAC position of Victim Advocate mirrors the Mental Health Family Navigator national initiative. Methods The feasibility study protocol is to develop, implement, and evaluate web-based and consultative training for Victim Advocates to enhance early engagement in services (E3 training). The interactive web-based training embeds key targets of knowledge and skills related to family engagement, trauma, and EBP services. Participating CACs were randomized to E3 webinar-based training, E3 webinar plus consultation, or delayed training. The project will test the E3 training’s impact on key mechanisms of change (e.g., knowledge, skills) to improve rates of screening, referral, and access to EBP services. The feasibility of implementing the training program and differential impact and costs by level of training will be examined. Discussion The overarching goal of this project is to test the feasibility of training that is readily implemented through CACs and examine the mechanisms for improving early engagement and, ultimately, child, and adolescent mental health outcomes. Results and cost findings will be used to plan a large-scale comprehensive, mixed-methods hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation and cost-effectiveness trial of family navigator E3 training. If outcomes are positive, considerable infrastructure exists to support the scale-up and sustainability of E3 training nationwide, by embedding the training in national CAC training protocols. Trial registration NCT04221633 Date and version identifier March 25, 2021; Vers. 1.0 (original); September 11, 2021; Vers 2.0 (revision); October 29, 2021; Vers. 3.0 (revision)

Additional file 1. COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist