Search

Background: In 2012, Philadelphia's Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS) developed an initiative to implement an evidence-based treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), across the city's behavioral health system. This report evaluates the initiative's 10-year implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Method: The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework guided our implementation evaluation. The implementation outcomes include adoption, reach, and sustainment; these were obtained during regular evaluation data collection from publicly funded behavioral health agencies participating in the TF-CBT initiative. We analyze effectiveness outcomes (i.e., changes in PTSD symptoms) from a subset of patients receiving TF-CBT, which were collected in 6-month intervals by our research team between 2013 and 2021. Results: From 2012 to 2021, DBHIDS trained 478 clinicians in TF-CBT across 20 behavioral health agencies. During this time, 23,401 youths were screened for potentially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms, and 7,550 youths received TF-CBT. Through the TF-CBT initiative, the city expanded the network of TF-CBT providers from 3 to 20 agencies. DBHIDS sustained this network by maintaining the participation of 16 behavioral health agencies over the course of a decade. The subset of 202 youths who were evaluated to assess TF-CBT effectiveness was drawn from 94 therapists and 20 agencies across Philadelphia. All participating youths completed a baseline assessment, and 151 (75%) completed at least one follow-up assessment. Linear mixed-effects models accounting for observations nested within participants and nested within clinicians found that treatment significantly reduced PTSD symptoms. Conclusion: Between 2012 and 2021, DBHIDS successfully implemented and sustained TF-CBT across the city's behavioral health system. Adoption, reach, and sustainment of TF-CBT were high. Despite the considerable adverse experiences faced by youths seeking treatment in Philadelphia's behavioral health system, TF-CBT was effective. Future directions to improve TF-CBT implementation in the next iteration of the initiative are described.

BackgroundImplementation mapping is a systematic, collaborative, and contextually-attentive method for developing implementation strategies. As an exemplar, we applied this method to strategy development for Managed Problem Solving Plus (MAPS+), an adapted evidence-based intervention for HIV medication adherence and care retention that will be delivered by community health workers and tested in an upcoming trial.MethodsIn Step 1: Conduct Needs Assessment, we interviewed 31 stakeholders to identify determinants of MAPS+ implementation in 13 clinics serving people with HIV in Philadelphia County. In Step 2: Develop Logic Model, we used these determinants as inputs for a working logic model guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. In Step 3: Operationalize Implementation Strategies, our team held a virtual stakeholder meeting to confirm determinants. We synthesized stakeholder feedback, then identified implementation strategies that conceptually matched to determinants using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Next, we operationalized implementation strategies with specific examples for clinic settings. We linked strategies to behavior change theories to allow for a mechanistic understanding. We then held a second virtual stakeholder meeting to present the implementation menu for feedback and glean generalizable insights for how these strategies could be operationalized in each stakeholder's clinic. In Step 4: Protocolize Strategies, we incorporated stakeholder feedback and finalized the implementation strategy menu.FindingsImplementation mapping produced a menu of 39 strategies including revise professional roles, identify and prepare champions, use warm handoffs, and change record systems. The process of implementation mapping generated key challenges for implementation strategy development: lack of implementation strategies targeting the outer setting (i.e., sociopolitical context); tension between a one-size-fits-all and individualized approach for all clinics; conceptual confusion between facilitators and strategies; and challenges in translating the implementation science lexicon for partners.ImplicationsThis case exemplar advances both MAPS+ implementation and implementation science methods by furthering our understanding of the use of implementation mapping to develop strategies that enhance uptake of evidence-based interventions. The implementation menu will inform MAPS+ deployment across Philadelphia in an upcoming hybrid trial. We will carry out Step 5: Test Strategies to test the effectiveness and implementation of MAPS+.