Search

Background: This study examined fidelity of implementation strategies used in an organizational process improvement intervention (OPII) designed to improve evidence-based practices related to assessments for drug-involved clients exiting incarceration. Leadership was studied as a moderating factor between fidelity and outcomes. Methods: A mixed-method cluster randomized design was used to randomize 21 sites to early- or delayed-start within 9 research centers. Parent study protocol was reviewed to develop fidelity constructs (i.e., responsiveness, dose, quality, adherence). Outcomes were site-level success in achieving goals and objectives completed during the OPII (e.g., percent goals achieved). Correlations, analyses of covariance, regressions and moderation analyses were performed. Qualitative interviews assessed facilitators/barriers to implementation. Results: Fidelity constructs related to outcomes. No differences were found in fidelity by early or delayed condition. At low levels of leadership, high staff responsiveness (i.e., engagement in the OPII) related to poorer outcome. Conclusions: It is important to consider contextual factors (e.g., leadership) that may influence implementation strategy fidelity when deploying evidence-based practices. Findings are relevant to researchers, clinicians, administrators and policy makers, and suggest that goal completion during implementation of evidence-based practices requires monitoring of leadership competence, fidelity to implementation strategies (i.e., staff responsiveness to strategies) and attendance to goal importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain. Method: Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed). Results: Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites. Conclusions: Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Opioid overdose deaths among adolescents and young adults have risen sharply in the United States over recent decades. This study aimed to explore the nature of adolescent and young adult perspectives on overdose experiences. Design This study involved thematic analysis of interviews undertaken as part of a mixed‐methods, randomized trial of extended release naltrexone (XR‐NTX) versus treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) for adolescents and young adults (aged 15–21 years) with opioid use disorder (OUD). Setting: Participants were recruited during a residential treatment episode at Mountain Manor Treatment Center, in Baltimore, MD, USA. Participants/cases: As part of the qualitative component of this study, 35 adolescents/young adults completed up to three interviews: at baseline, 3 and 6 months after release from residential opioid use disorder treatment. Measurements Semi‐structured interviews solicited participant experiences with opioid use disorder treatment; their satisfaction with the medications used to treat opioid use disorder; counseling received; current substance use; issues related to treatment retention; their treatment goals; and their future outlook. Findings Four broad themes emerged: (1) adolescents/young adults had difficulty identifying overdoses due to interpreting subjective symptoms and a lack of memory of the event, (2) this sample had difficulty perceiving risk that is misaligned with traditional understandings of overdose intentionality, (3) adolescents/young adults did not interpret personal overdose events as a catalyst for behavior change and (4) this sample experienced a greater impact to behavior change through witnessing an overdose of someone in their social network. Conclusions: The sample of US adolescents and young adults in treatment for opioid use disorder expressed difficulty identifying whether or not they had experienced an overdose, expressed fluctuating intentionality for those events and did not have clear intentions to change their behavior. Witnessing an overdose appeared to be as salient an experience as going through an overdose oneself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]