Search

BACKGROUND Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics. OBJECTIVES To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support. RESEARCH DESIGN Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF). MEASURES The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18. RESULTS Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59-13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, -0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.49) than REP+EF patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.

The study assessed correlates of emergency department use among participants in a collaborative care program for bipolar disorder.Community-based clinics from two states implemented Life Goals-Collaborative Care (LG-CC), an evidence-based model that includes self-management sessions and care management contacts. Logistic regression determined participant factors associated with emergency department use between six and 12 months after LG-CC implementation.Of 219 participants with baseline and 12-month data, 24% reported at least one emergency department visit. Participants with a recent homelessness history (odds ratio [OR]=3.76, p=.01) or five or more care management contacts (OR=2.62, p=.05) had a higher probability of visiting an emergency department, after the analyses were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors, including physical health score and hospitalization history.Participants in a collaborative care program who had a history of homelessness were more likely to use the emergency department, suggesting a greater need for more intensive care coordination.

This randomized controlled implementation study compared the effectiveness of a standard versus enhanced version of the replicating effective programs (REP) implementation strategy to improve the uptake of the life goals-collaborative care model (LG-CC) for bipolar disorder. Seven community-based practices (384 patient participants) were randomized to standard (manual/training) or enhanced REP (customized manual/training/facilitation) to promote LG-CC implementation. Participants from enhanced REP sites had no significant changes in primary outcomes (improved quality of life, reduced functioning or mood symptoms) by 24 months. Further research is needed to determine whether implementation strategies can lead to sustained, improved participant outcomes in addition to program uptake.

Background Despite the availability of psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs), treatment and outcomes for persons with mental disorders remain suboptimal. Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an effective implementation strategy, still resulted in less than half of sites using an EBP. The primary aim of this cluster randomized trial is to determine, among sites not initially responding to REP, the effect of adaptive implementation strategies that begin with an External Facilitator (EF) or with an External Facilitator plus an Internal Facilitator (IF) on improved EBP use and patient outcomes in 12 months. Methods/Design This study employs a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design to build an adaptive implementation strategy. The EBP to be implemented is life goals (LG) for patients with mood disorders across 80 community-based outpatient clinics (N N = 1,600 patients) from different U.S. regions. Sites not initially responding to REP (defined as

Mood disorders represent the most expensive mental disorders for employer-based commercial health plans. Collaborative care models are effective in treating chronic physical and mental illnesses at little to no net healthcare cost, but to date have primarily been implemented by larger healthcare organizations in facility-based models. The majority of practices providing commercially insured care are far too small to implement such models. Health plan-level collaborative care treatment can address this unmet need. The goal of this study is to implement at the national commercial health plan level a collaborative care model to improve outcomes for persons with mood disorders. A randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care model versus usual care will be conducted among beneficiaries of a large national health plan from across the country seen by primary care or behavioral health practices. At discharge 344 patients identified by health plan claims as hospitalized for unipolar depression or bipolar disorder will be randomized to receive collaborative care (patient phone-based self-management support, care management, and guideline dissemination to practices delivered by a plan-level care manager) or usual care from their provider. Primary outcomes are changes in mood symptoms and mental health-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include rehospitalization, receipt of guideline-concordant care, and work productivity. This study will determine whether a collaborative care model for mood disorders delivered at the national health plan level improves outcomes compared to usual care, and will inform a business case for collaborative care models for these settings that can reach patients wherever they receive treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02041962 ; registered January 3, 2014.