Search

BACKGROUND: Collaboration strategies refer to policies and practices used to align operations and services across organizations or systems. These strategies can influence implementation of cross-system interventions focused on improving integration of care, but remain under-specified and under-examined. This study identifies collaboration strategies and the conditions under which they affected implementation of Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Teams (START), an evidence-based intervention focused on integrating child welfare and behavioral health services for families involved with both systems. METHODS: Our study sample included 17 county child welfare agencies that implemented START. Data on collaboration strategies and organizational context were obtained from key informant interviews, frontline worker surveys, and contracts. Contextual data were drawn from secondary data, and fidelity data were drawn from an administrative database. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated using coincidence analysis, and used to identify combinations of conditions that uniquely differentiated agencies with higher and lower fidelity to START. RESULTS: Fidelity was lower for intervention components requiring cross-system collaboration. Although key informants acknowledged the importance of collaboration for START implementation, few agencies used formal collaboration strategies other than staff co-location or reported high communication quality between frontline staff in child welfare and behavioral health. In coincidence analysis, four conditions differentiated agencies with higher and lower fidelity with 100% consistency and 88% coverage. We found that either strong leadership support or, in high need communities, third-party resource support from local behavioral health boards were sufficient for high fidelity. Similarly, in high need communities, absence of third-party resource support was sufficient for low fidelity, while in low need communities, absence of communication quality was sufficient for low fidelity. CONCLUSION: Administrators, frontline workers, and interested third parties (i.e., other stakeholders not directly involved in implementation) can use collaboration strategies to facilitate implementation. However, the effectiveness of collaboration strategies depends on local context. In agencies where internal leadership support for implementation is low but need for intervention is high, third-party resource support may still be sufficient for high fidelity. Further research is needed to test effectiveness of collaboration strategies in different conditions and on a broader range of process and implementation outcomes. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03931005, Registered 04/29/2019, https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03931005 .

BackgroundImplementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.MethodBuilding on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.ResultsFrom this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.ConclusionsThis research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

BackgroundCross-system interventions that integrate health, behavioral health, and social services can improve client outcomes and expand community impact. Successful implementation of these interventions depends on the extent to which service partners can align frontline services and organizational operations. However, collaboration strategies linking multiple implementation contexts have received limited empirical attention. This study identifies, describes, and specifies multi-level collaboration strategies used during the implementation of Ohio Sobriety Treatment and Reducing Trauma (Ohio START), a cross-system intervention that integrates services across two systems (child welfare and evidence-based behavioral health services) for families that are affected by co-occurring child maltreatment and parental substance use disorders.MethodsIn phase 1, we used a multi-site qualitative design with 17 counties that implemented Ohio START. Qualitative data were gathered from 104 staff from child welfare agencies, behavioral health treatment organizations, and regional behavioral health boards involved in implementation via 48 small group interviews about collaborative approaches to implementation. To examine cross-system collaboration strategies, qualitative data were analyzed using an iterative template approach and content analysis. In phase 2, a 16-member expert panel met to validate and specify the cross-system collaboration strategies identified in the interviews. The panel was comprised of key child welfare and behavioral health partners and scholars.ResultsIn phase 1, we identified seven cross-system collaboration strategies used for implementation. Three strategies were used to staff the program: (1) contract for expertise, (2) provide joint supervision, and (3) co-locate staff. Two strategies were used to promote service access: (4) referral protocols and (5) expedited access agreements. Two strategies were used to align case plans: (6) shared decision-making meetings, and (7) sharing data. In phase 2, expert panelists specified operational details of the cross-system collaboration strategies, and explained the processes by which strategies were perceived to improve implementation and service system outcomes.ConclusionsWe identified a range of cross-system collaboration strategies that show promise for improving staffing, service access, and case planning. Leaders, supervisors, and frontline staff used these strategies during all phases of implementation. These findings lay the foundation for future experimental and quasi-experimental studies that test the effectiveness of cross-system collaboration strategies.

BackgroundThe Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation includes 73 defined implementation strategies clustered into nine content areas. This taxonomy has been used to track implementation strategies over time using surveys. This study aimed to improve the ERIC survey using cognitive interviews with non-implementation scientist clinicians.MethodsStarting in 2015, we developed and fielded annual ERIC surveys to evaluate liver care in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We invited providers who had completed at least three surveys to participate in cognitive interviews (October 2020 to October 2021). Before the interviews, participants reviewed the complete 73-item ERIC survey and marked which strategies were unclear due to wording, conceptual confusion, or overlap with other strategies. They then engaged in semi-structured cognitive interviews to describe the experience of completing the survey and elaborate on which strategies required further clarification.ResultsTwelve VA providers completed surveys followed by cognitive interviews. The "Engage Consumer" and "Support Clinicians" clusters were rated most highly in terms of conceptual and wording clarity. In contrast, the "Financial" cluster had the most wording and conceptual confusion. The "Adapt and Tailor to Context" cluster strategies were considered to have the most redundancy. Providers outlined ways in which the strategies could be clearer in terms of wording (32%), conceptual clarity (51%), and clarifying the distinction between strategies (51%).ConclusionsCognitive interviews with ERIC survey participants allowed us to identify and address issues with strategy wording, combine conceptually indistinct strategies, and disaggregate multi-barreled strategies. Improvements made to the ERIC survey based on these findings will ultimately assist VA and other institutions in designing, evaluating, and replicating quality improvement efforts.

BackgroundChildren's Advocacy Centers (CACs) use multidisciplinary teams to investigate and respond to maltreatment allegations. CACs play a critical role in connecting children with mental health needs to evidence-based mental health treatment, especially in low-resourced rural areas. Standardized mental health screening and referral protocols can improve CACs' capacity to identify children with mental health needs and encourage treatment engagement. In the team-based context of CACs, teamwork quality is likely to influence implementation processes and outcomes. Implementation strategies that target teams and apply the science of team effectiveness may enhance implementation outcomes in team-based settings.MethodsWe will use Implementation Mapping to develop team-focused implementation strategies to support the implementation of the Care Process Model for Pediatric Traumatic Stress (CPM-PTS), a standardized screening and referral protocol. Team-focused strategies will integrate activities from effective team development interventions. We will pilot team-focused implementation in a cluster-randomized hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial. Four rural CACs will implement the CPM-PTS after being randomized to either team-focused implementation (n = 2 CACs) or standard implementation (n = 2 CACs). We will assess the feasibility of team-focused implementation and explore between-group differences in hypothesized team-level mechanisms of change and implementation outcomes (implementation aim). We will use a within-group pre-post design to test the effectiveness of the CPM-PTS in increasing caregivers' understanding of their child's mental health needs and caregivers' intentions to initiate mental health services (effectiveness aim).ConclusionsTargeting multidisciplinary teams is an innovative approach to improving implementation outcomes. This study will be one of the first to test team-focused implementation strategies that integrate effective team development interventions. Results will inform efforts to implement evidence-based practices in team-based service settings.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT05679154 . Registered on January 10, 2023.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for more than 80,000 veterans with cirrhosis. This longitudinal, multimethod evaluation of a cirrhosis care quality improvement program aimed to (1) identify implementation strategies associated with evidence-based, guideline-concordant cirrhosis care over time, and (2) use qualitative interviews to operationalize strategies for a manualized intervention. APPROACH AND RESULTS: VHA providers were surveyed annually about the use of 73 implementation strategies to improve cirrhosis care in fiscal years 2018 (FY18) and 2019 (FY19). Implementation strategies linked to guideline-concordant cirrhosis care were identified using bivariate statistics and comparative configurational methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 facilities in the highest quartile of cirrhosis care to specify the successful implementation strategies and their mechanisms of change. A total of 106 VHA facilities (82%) responded at least once over the 2-year period (FY18, n = 63; FY19, n = 100). Facilities reported using a median of 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 20) implementation strategies in FY18 and 10 (IQR 19) in FY19. Of the 73 strategies, 35 (48%) were positively correlated with provision of evidence-based cirrhosis care. Configurational analysis identified multiple strategy pathways directly linked to more guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. Across both methods, a subset of eight strategies was determined to be core to cirrhosis care improvement and specified using qualitative interviews. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cirrhosis care improvement initiative, a multimethod approach identified a core subset of successful implementation strategy combinations. This process of empirically identifying and specifying implementation strategies may be applicable to other implementation challenges in hepatology.

There is limited capacity and infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa to conduct clinical trials for the identification of efficient and effective new prevention, diagnostic and treatment modalities to address the disproportionate burden of disease. This paper reports on the process to establish locally driven infrastructure for multicentre research and trials in Nigeria known as the Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance Model Innovation and Research Centres (NISA-MIRCs). We used a participatory approach to establish a research network of 21 high-volume health facilities selected from all 6 geopolitical zones in Nigeria capable of conducting clinical trials, implementation research using effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs and health system research. The NISA-MIRCs have a cumulative potential to recruit 60 000 women living with HIV and an age-matched cohort of HIV-uninfected women. We conducted a needs assessment, convened several stakeholder outreaches and engagement sessions, and established a governance structure. Additionally, we selected and trained a core research team, developed criteria for site selection, assessed site readiness for research and obtained ethical approval from a single national institutional review board. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework to guide our reporting of the process in the development of this network. The NISA-MIRCs will provide a nationally representative infrastructure to initiate new studies, support collaborative research, inform policy decisions and thereby fill a significant research infrastructure gap in Africa's most populous country.

BackgroundWhile few countries and healthcare systems are on track to meet the World Health Organization's hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination goals, the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a leader in these efforts. We aimed to determine which implementation strategies were associated with successful national viral elimination implementation within the VHA.MethodsWe conducted a five-year, longitudinal cohort study of the VHA Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative between October 2015 and September 2019. Participants from 130 VHA medical centers treating HCV were sent annual electronic surveys about their use of 73 implementation strategies, organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Descriptive and nonparametric analyses assessed strategy use over time, strategy attribution to the HIT, and strategy associations with site HCV treatment volume and rate of adoption, following the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations.ResultsBetween 58 and 109 medical centers provided responses in each year, including 127 (98%) responding at least once, and 54 (42%) responding in all four implementation years. A median of 13-27 strategies were endorsed per year, and 8-36 individual strategies were significantly associated with treatment volume per year. Data warehousing, tailoring, and patient-facing strategies were most commonly endorsed. One strategy-"identify early adopters to learn from their experiences"-was significantly associated with HCV treatment volume in each year. Peak implementation year was associated with revising professional roles, providing local technical assistance, using data warehousing (i.e., dashboard population management), and identifying and preparing champions. Many of the strategies were driven by a national learning collaborative, which was instrumental in successful HCV elimination.ConclusionsVHA's tremendous success in rapidly treating nearly all Veterans with HCV can provide a roadmap for other HCV elimination initiatives.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanisms explain how implementation strategies work. Implementation research requires careful operationalisation and empirical study of the causal pathway(s) by which strategies effect change, and factors that may amplify or weaken their effects. Understanding mechanisms is critically important to replicate findings, learn from negative studies or adapt an implementation strategy developed in one setting to another. Without understanding implementation mechanisms, it is difficult to design strategies to produce expected effects across contexts, which may have disproportionate effects on settings in which priority populations receive care. This manuscript outlines the protocol for an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded initiative to: (1) establish priorities for an agenda to guide research on implementation mechanisms in health and public health, and (2) disseminate the agenda to research, policy and practice audiences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A network of scientific experts will convene in Deep Dive meetings across 3 years. A research agenda will be generated through analysis and synthesis of information from six sources: (1) systematic reviews, (2) network members approaches to studying mechanisms, (3) new proposals presented in implementation proposal feedback sessions, (4) working group sessions conducted in a leading implementation research training institute, (5) breakout sessions at the Society for Implementation Research Collaborations (SIRC) 2019 conference and (6) SIRC conference abstracts. Two members will extract mechanism-relevant text segments from each data source and a third member will generate statements as an input for concept mapping. Concept mapping will generate unique clusters of challenges, and the network will engage in a nominal group process to identify priorities for the research agenda. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This initiative will yield an actionable research agenda to guide research to identify and test mechanisms of change for implementation strategies. The agenda will be disseminated via multiple channels to solicit feedback and promote rigorous research on implementation mechanisms.

Schools, like other service sectors, are confronted with an implementation gap, with the slow adoption and uneven implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP) as part of routine service delivery, undermining efforts to promote better youth behavioral health outcomes. Implementation researchers have undertaken systematic efforts to publish taxonomies of implementation strategies (i.e., methods or techniques that are used to facilitate the uptake, use, and sustainment of EBP), such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Project. The 73-strategy ERIC compilation was developed in the context of healthcare and largely informed by research and practice experts who operate in that service sector. Thus, the comprehensibility, contextual appropriateness, and utility of the existing compilation to other service sectors, such as the educational setting, remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to initiate the School Implementation Strategies, Translating ERIC Resources (SISTER) Project to iteratively adapt the ERIC compilation to the educational sector. The results of a seven-step adaptation process resulted in 75 school-adapted strategies. Surface-level changes were made to the majority of the original ERIC strategies (52 out of 73), while five of the strategies required deeper modifications for adaptation to the school context. Six strategies were deleted and seven new strategies were added based on existing school-based research. The implications of this study's findings for prevention scientists engaged in implementation research (e.g., creating a common nomenclature for implementation strategies) and limitations are discussed.

Effective mentoring is a key mechanism propelling successful research and academic careers, particularly for early career scholars. Most mentoring programs focus on models pairing senior and early career researchers, with limited focus on peer mentoring. Peer mentoring may be especially advantageous within emerging areas such as implementation science (IS) where challenges to traditional mentoring may be more prevalent. This special communication highlights the value of peer mentoring by describing a case study of an early career IS peer mentoring group. We delineate our curriculum and structure; support and processes; and products and outcomes. We highlight important group member characteristics to consider during group formation and continuation. The group's long-term (6 years) success was attributed to the balance of similarities and differences among group members. Members were in a similar career phase and used similar methodologies but studied different health topics at different institutions. Group members gave and received instrumental and psychosocial support and shared resources and knowledge. Peer mentoring can serve an important function to provide emotional, logistical, and professional development support for early career scholars. Our case study highlights strategies to foster peer mentoring groups that provide a generalizable blueprint and opportunity for improved outcomes for early career professionals.

BackgroundOrganizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate are key organizational constructs that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices. However, there has been little systematic investigation of the availability of psychometrically strong measures that can be used to assess these constructs in behavioral health. This systematic review identified and assessed the psychometric properties of measures of organizational culture, organizational climate, implementation climate, and related subconstructs as defined by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Ehrhart and colleagues.MethodsData collection involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full-text review, construct assignment, and citation searches for all known empirical uses. Data relevant to nine psychometric criteria from the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) were extracted: internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, known-groups validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, structural validity, responsiveness, and norms. Extracted data for each criterion were rated on a scale from -1 ("poor") to 4 ("excellent"), and each measure was assigned a total score (highest possible score = 36) that formed the basis for head-to-head comparisons of measures for each focal construct.ResultsWe identified full measures or relevant subscales of broader measures for organizational culture (n = 21), organizational climate (n = 36), implementation climate (n = 2), tension for change (n = 2), compatibility (n = 6), relative priority (n = 2), organizational incentives and rewards (n = 3), goals and feedback (n = 3), and learning climate (n = 2). Psychometric evidence was most frequently available for internal consistency and norms. Information about other psychometric properties was less available. Median ratings for psychometric properties across categories of measures ranged from "poor" to "good." There was limited evidence of responsiveness or predictive validity.ConclusionWhile several promising measures were identified, the overall state of measurement related to these constructs is poor. To enhance understanding of how these constructs influence implementation research and practice, measures that are sensitive to change and predictive of key implementation and clinical outcomes are required. There is a need for further testing of the most promising measures, and ample opportunity to develop additional psychometrically strong measures of these important constructs.Plain language summaryOrganizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate can play a critical role in facilitating or impeding the successful implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices. Advancing our understanding of how these contextual factors independently or collectively influence implementation and clinical outcomes requires measures that are reliable and valid. Previous systematic reviews identified measures of organizational factors that influence implementation, but none focused explicitly on behavioral health; focused solely on organizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate; or assessed the evidence base of all known uses of a measure within a given area, such as behavioral health-focused implementation efforts. The purpose of this study was to identify and assess the psychometric properties of measures of organizational culture, organizational climate, implementation climate, and related subconstructs that have been used in behavioral health-focused implementation research. We identified 21 measures of organizational culture, 36 measures of organizational climate, 2 measures of implementation climate, 2 measures of tension for change, 6 measures of compatibility, 2 measures of relative priority, 3 measures of organizational incentives and rewards, 3 measures of goals and feedback, and 2 measures of learning climate. Some promising measures were identified; however, the overall state of measurement across these constructs is poor. This review highlights specific areas for improvement and suggests the need to rigorously evaluate existing measures and develop new measures.

BackgroundImplementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations.MethodsA purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants' experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations.ResultsHealth economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research.ConclusionsHealth economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another's work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another's disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.

BackgroundCross-system interventions can help integrate services across different service delivery systems but require organizations to establish strong collaborative relationships for implementation. Contingency theory suggests that the effectiveness of different collaborative strategies (i.e. specific ways organizations align operations and services) varies by context. This paper describes a study of different strategies for fostering collaboration between child welfare and substance abuse treatment agencies and the conditions under which they are effective for implementation. We also describe the development and piloting of the Collaborating Across Systems for Program Implementation (CASPI) tool-a decision-making guide intended to help researchers and organizational leaders identify and use appropriate collaborative strategies for their context.Methods/designThis multisite longitudinal, mixed methods study, leverages a naturally occurring implementation initiative -- in up to 17 Ohio counties -- to implement Ohio START (Sobriety Treatment and Reducing Trauma). START is a child welfare model that requires strong collaboration with local substance use treatment organizations to promote integrated services. During the first two years, we will identify collaborative strategies associated with improved START implementation (penetration and fidelity) and service delivery outcomes (timeliness), given system, and organizational features. We will conduct a convergent mixed methods study drawing on worker surveys, agency documents, administrative data, formal partner agreements, and group interviews. Data will be integrated and analyzed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). To develop the CASPI, an expert panel comprised of implementation experts, and community stakeholders will convene to synthesize our findings and develop contents (including a decision tree). During the final year of the study, we will assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the CASPI in a randomized vignette experiment, and a pilot-test with 3 child welfare agencies that have not yet implemented START.DiscussionOur results will lay the groundwork for a larger controlled trial that will test the CASPI's effectiveness for supporting effective and efficient implementation of cross-system interventions like START. The CASPI is expected to help leaders and researchers select and use collaboration strategies tailored to their context and be applicable in a wide range of settings including rural communities. Our work also advances system-level implementation strategies.Trial registrationNCT03931005 , Registered April 29, 2019.

BackgroundCirrhosis is a rapidly increasing cause of global mortality. To improve cirrhosis care, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative to support VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) to deliver evidence-based cirrhosis care. This randomized HIT program evaluation aims to develop and assess a novel approach for choosing and applying implementation strategies to improve the quality of cirrhosis care.MethodsEvaluation aims are to (1) empirically determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for Veterans with cirrhosis, (2) manualize these "data-driven" implementation strategies, and (3) assess the effectiveness of data-driven implementation strategies in increasing cirrhosis EBP uptake. Aim 1 will include an online survey of all VAMCs' use of 73 implementations strategies to improve cirrhosis care, as defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Traditional statistical as well as configurational comparative methods will both be employed to determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with site-level adherence to EBPs for cirrhosis. In aim 2, semi-structured interviews with high-performing VAMCs will be conducted to operationalize successful implementation strategies for cirrhosis care. These data will be used to inform the creation of a step-by-step guide to tailoring and applying the implementation strategies identified in aim 1. In aim 3, this manualized implementation intervention will be assessed using a hybrid type III stepped-wedge cluster randomized design. This evaluation will be conducted in 12 VAMCs, with four VAMCs crossing from control to intervention every 6 months, in order to assess the effectiveness of using data-driven implementation strategies to improve guideline-concordant cirrhosis care.DiscussionSuccessful completion of this innovative evaluation will establish the feasibility of using early evaluation data to inform a manualized, user-friendly implementation intervention for VAMCs with opportunities to improve care. This evaluation will provide implementation support tools that can be applied to enhance the implementation of other evidence-based practices.Trial registrationThis project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04178096 ) on 4/29/20.

Implementing and sustaining evidence-based programs with fidelity may require multiple implementation strategies tailored to address multi-level, context-specific barriers and facilitators. Ideally, selecting and tailoring implementation strategies should be guided by theory, evidence, and input from relevant stakeholders; however, methods to guide the selection and tailoring of strategies are not well-developed. There is a need for more rigorous methods for assessing and prioritizing implementation determinants (barriers and facilitators) and linking implementation strategies to determinants. The Collaborative Organizational Approach to Selecting and Tailoring Implementation Strategies (COAST-IS) is an intervention designed to increase the effectiveness of evidence-based practice implementation and sustainment. COAST-IS will enable organizational leaders and clinicians to use Intervention Mapping to select and tailor implementation strategies to address their site-specific needs. Intervention Mapping is a multi-step process that incorporates theory, evidence, and stakeholder perspectives to ensure that implementation strategies effectively address key determinants of change. COAST-IS will be piloted with community mental health organizations that are working to address the needs of children and youth who experience trauma-related emotional or behavioral difficulties by engaging in a learning collaborative to implement an evidence-based psychosocial intervention (trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy). Organizations will be matched and then randomized to participate in the learning collaborative only (control) or to receive additional support through COAST-IS. The primary aims of this study are to (1) assess the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and perceived utility of COAST-IS; (2) evaluate the organizational stakeholders' fidelity to the core elements of COAST-IS; and (3) demonstrate the feasibility of testing COAST-IS in a larger effectiveness trial. COAST-IS is a systematic method that integrates theory, evidence, and stakeholder perspectives to improve the effectiveness and precision of implementation strategies. If effective, COAST-IS has the potential to improve the implementation and sustainment of a wide range of evidence-based practices in mental health and other sectors. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03799432) on January 10, 2019 (last updated August 5, 2019).

U.S. health care systems are tasked with alleviating the burden of mental health, but are frequently underprepared and lack workforce and resource capacity to deliver services to all in need. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can increase access to evidence-based mental health care. However, DMHIs commonly do not fit into the day-to-day activities of the people who engage with them, resulting in a research-to-practice gap for DMHI implementation. For health care settings, differences between digital and traditional mental health services make alignment and integration challenging. Specialized attention is needed to improve the implementation of DMHIs in health care settings so that these services yield high uptake, engagement, and sustainment. The purpose of this article is to enhance efforts to integrate DMHIs in health care settings by proposing implementation strategies, selected and operationalized based on the discrete strategies established in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project, that align to DMHI-specific barriers in these settings. Guidance is offered in how these strategies can be applied to DMHI implementation across four phases commonly distinguished in implementation science using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework. Next steps to advance research in this area and improve the research-to-practice gap for implementing DMHIs are recommended. Applying implementation strategies to DMHI implementation will enable psychologists to systematically evaluate this process, which can yield an enhanced understanding of the factors that facilitate implementation success and improve the translation of DMHIs from controlled trials to real-world settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

BackgroundThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares for more patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) than any other US health care system. We tracked the implementation strategies that VA sites used to implement highly effective new treatments for HCV with the aim of uncovering how combinations of implementation strategies influenced the uptake of the HCV treatment innovation. We applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to uncover causal dependencies and identify difference-making strategy configurations, and to distinguish higher from lower HCV treating sites.MethodsWe surveyed providers to assess VA sites' use of 73 implementation strategies to promote HCV treatment in the fiscal year 2015. CCMs were used to identify strategy configurations that uniquely distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites.ResultsFrom the 73 possible implementation strategies, CCMs identified 5 distinct strategy configurations, or "solution paths." These were comprised of 10 individual strategies that collectively explained 80% of the sites with higher HCV treatment starts with 100% consistency. Using any one of the following 5 solution paths was sufficient to produce higher treatment starts: (1) technical assistance; (2) engaging in a learning collaborative AND designating leaders; (3) site visits AND outreach to patients to promote uptake and adherence; (4) developing resource sharing agreements AND an implementation blueprint; OR (5) creating new clinical teams AND sharing quality improvement knowledge with other sites AND engaging patients. There was equifinality in that the presence of any one of the 5 solution paths was sufficient for higher treatment starts.ConclusionsFive strategy configurations distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites with 100% consistency. CCMs represent a methodological advancement that can help inform high-yield implementation strategy selection and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future implementation efforts.

BackgroundTo increase the uptake of evidence-based treatments for hepatitis C (HCV), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Hepatitis Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative. Teams of providers were tasked with choosing implementation strategies to improve HCV care. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess how site-level implementation strategies were associated with HCV treatment initiation and how the use of implementation strategies and their association with HCV treatment changed over time.MethodsA key HCV provider at each VA site (N = 130) was asked in two consecutive fiscal years (FYs) to complete an online survey examining the use of 73 implementation strategies organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The number of Veterans initiating treatment for HCV, or "treatment starts," at each site was captured using national data. Providers reported whether the use of each implementation strategy was due to the HIT Collaborative.ResultsOf 130 sites, 80 (62%) responded in Year 1 (FY15) and 105 (81%) responded in Year 2 (FY16). Respondents endorsed a median of 27 (IQR19-38) strategies in Year 2. The strategies significantly more likely to be chosen in Year 2 included tailoring strategies to deliver HCV care, promoting adaptability, sharing knowledge between sites, and using mass media. The total number of treatment starts was significantly positively correlated with total number of strategies endorsed in both years. In Years 1 and 2, respectively, 28 and 26 strategies were significantly associated with treatment starts; 12 strategies overlapped both years, 16 were unique to Year 1, and 14 were unique to Year 2. Strategies significantly associated with treatment starts shifted between Years 1 and 2. Pre-implementation strategies in the "training/educating," "interactive assistance," and "building stakeholder interrelationships" clusters were more likely to be significantly associated with treatment starts in Year 1, while strategies in the "evaluative and iterative" and "adapting and tailoring" clusters were more likely to be associated with treatment starts in Year 2. Approximately half of all strategies were attributed to the HIT Collaborative.ConclusionsThese results suggest that measuring implementation strategies over time is a useful way to catalog implementation of an evidence-based practice over time and across settings.

BACKGROUND:National leaders recommend documenting social determinants of health and actions taken to address social determinants of health in electronic health records, and a growing body of evidence suggests the health benefits of doing so. However, little evidence exists to guide implementation of social determinants of health documentation/action. METHODS:This paper describes a 5-year, mixed-methods, stepped-wedge trial with realist evaluation, designed to test the impact of providing 30 community health centers with step-by-step guidance on implementing electronic health record-based social determinants of health documentation. This guidance will entail 6 months of tailored support from an interdisciplinary team, including training and technical assistance. We will report on tailored support provided at each of five implementation steps; impact of tailored implementation support; a method for tracking such tailoring; and context-specific pathways through which these tailored strategies effect change. We will track the competencies and resources needed to support the study clinics' implementation efforts. DISCUSSION:Results will inform how to tailor implementation strategies to meet local needs in real-world practice settings. Secondary analyses will assess impacts of social determinants of health documentation and referral-making on diabetes outcomes. By learning whether and how scalable, tailored implementation strategies help community health centers adopt social determinants of health documentation and action, this study will yield timely guidance to primary care providers. We are not aware of previous studies exploring implementation strategies that support adoption of social determinants of action using electronic health and interventions, despite the pressing need for such guidance. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03607617 , registration date: 7/31/2018-retrospectively registered.

For population-wide impact of interventions, evidence-based programs must be successfully disseminated and adopted at scale. Research–practice partnerships can legitimize programs and support organizational adoption, however, ways of leveraging the contributions of partners during dissemination processes are less clear. TransformUs is a school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour program, and since 2018, has been disseminated at scale to all primary schools in Victoria, Australia, in partnership with 16 state and national organizations. The study objective was to investigate the experiences of partner organizations disseminating TransformUs within their networks, and factors associated with awareness and adoption of the program in schools, from the perspective of partner organizations. Semi-structured interviews with representatives from 15 (out of 16) partner organizations in 2019 involved in disseminating TransformUs state-wide. An interview guide was informed by the RE-AIM framework. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded anonymously. Data were analysed thematically. Four themes (and 13 sub-themes) were identified: (i) organizational barriers and facilitators to dissemination; (ii) implementation support for partners; (iii) overall research experience; and (iv) dissemination strategy. Partners used multiple dissemination channels to increase adoption, and strong alignment between TransformUs and the partner organization's goals appeared to enable dissemination. Partners outlined several local, regional, and state organizations to partner with, and offered suggestions regarding preferred content and timing of dissemination activities for their networks. Researchers planning research–practice partnerships should proactively consider organizational barriers partners may face during dissemination. Regular communication and feedback on dissemination outcomes may contribute to positive research–practice experiences and allow for tailored dissemination strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]