Search

Background: Internet-based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (iCBT) for depression have been implemented in routine care across Europe in varying ways, at various scales and with varying success. This study aimed to advance our understanding of organisational implementation climate from the perspectives of implementers and mental health service deliverers.Methods: Qualitative and quantitative methods were combined to study the concept of organisational implementation climate in mental health care settings. Based on concept mapping, a qualitative workshop with implementers was used to conceptualise organisational implementation climate for optimizing iCBT use in routine practice. Service deliverers involved in the provision of iCBT were invited to participate in an explorative cross-sectional survey assessing levels of satisfaction and usability of iCBT, and organisational implementation climate in implementing iCBT. The two methods were applied independently to study viewpoints of implementers as well as service deliverers. Corresponding to the explorative nature of the study, inductive reasoning was applied to identify patterns and develop a reasonable explanation of the observations made. Correlative associations between satisfaction, usability and implementation climate were explored.Results: Sixteen implementers representing fourteen service delivery organisations across Europe participated in the workshop. The top-three characteristics of a supportive organisational implementation climate included: (1) clear roles and skills of implementers, (2) feasible implementation targets, and (3) a dedicated implementation team. The top-three tools for creating a supportive implementation climate included: (1) feedback on job performance, (2) progress monitoring in achieving implementation targets, and (3) guidelines for assessing the impact of iCBT. The survey (n=111) indicated that service providers generally regarded their organisational implementation climate as supportive in implementing iCBT services. Organisational implementation climate was weakly associated with perceived usability and moderately with satisfaction with iCBT services.Conclusions: Organisational implementation climate is a relevant factor to implementers and service deliverers in implementing iCBT in routine care. It is not only an inherent characteristic of the context in which implementation takes place, it can also be shaped to improve implementation of iCBT services. Future research should further theorise organisational implementation climate and empirically validate the measurement instruments such as used in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The System Usability Scale (SUS) is used to measure usability of internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT). However, whether the SUS is a valid instrument to measure usability in this context is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the factor structure of the SUS, measuring usability of iCBT for depression in a sample of professionals. In addition, the psychometric properties (reliability, convergent validity) of the SUS were tested. Methods: A sample of 242 professionals using iCBT for depression from 6 European countries completed the SUS. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test whether a one-factor, two-factor, tone-model or bi-direct model would fit the data best. Reliability was assessed using complementary statistical indices (e.g. omega). To assess convergent validity, the SUS total score was correlated with an adapted Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-3). Results: CFA supported the one-factor, two-factor and tone-model, but the bi-factor model fitted the data best (Comparative Fit Index = 0.992, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.985, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.055, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.042 (respectively χ2diff (9) = 69.82, p < 0.001; χ2diff (8) = 33.04, p < 0.001). Reliability of the SUS was good (ω = 0.91). The total SUS score correlated moderately with the CSQ-3 (CSQ1 rs =.49, p < 0.001; CSQ2 rs =.46, p < 0.001; CSQ3 rs =.38, p < 0.001), indicating convergent validity. Conclusions: Although the SUS seems to have a multidimensional structure, the best model showed that the total sumscore of the SUS appears to be a valid and interpretable measure to assess the usability of internet-based interventions when used by professionals in mental healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of the project is to make high quality treatment for adults suffering from depressive disorder more widely available. This will be achieved try implementing and studying the use of video conference services and networks for treatment of depression in relevant setups, including collaborative care in routine care. MasterMind is a large cross-country project for which the study protocol has been published [1]. This abstract include the video conference part of the project. Context: 13 partners (pilot sites) across the European Union and associated countries participate in the project. The pilots are classified into four groups, depending on their focus. Group A is treatment for depression facilitated by video conference between specialists and/or GPs/other healthcare professionals without the patient. Group B is treatment for depression facilitated by video conference between specialist and GP with the patient present. Group C is follow-up or outpatient care of the patient at home. In this case, the healthcare worker communicates with the patient, who is at home. Group D is acute care. This is video conference from the acute ward to a specialist. Methods: The evaluation is structured according to the Model for ASessment of Telemedicine (MAST) [2] and the evaluation will assess the viewpoints of three levels of stakeholders involved in the projects: 1) patients, 2) healthcare professionals and 3) mental healthcare organisations. A mixedmethods approach will be employed to allow an understanding of what (quantitative results) the implementation projects have achieved, and how or why (qualitative results) these outcomes occurred. Results and discussion: The primary focal points of interest are reach, clinical effect, acceptability, appropriateness, implementation costs, and sustainability of the interventions in practice. At this point in the project, a large proportion of the data are still to be reported. The resulting summative evaluation will provide valuable insight into the perspectives of involved stakeholders and the factors that influence the implementation and up-scaling of video conference. Examples of the recommendations so far is related to the importance of having focus on implementation, engaging health care professionals, management and patients and finding the right technical solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT) for the treatment of depressive disorders is innovative and promising. Various studies have demonstrated large effect sizes up to 2.27, but implementation in routine practice lags behind. Mental health therapists play a significant role in the uptake of internet-based interventions. Therefore, it is interesting to study factors that influence the therapists in whether they apply internet-based therapy or not. This study, as part of the European implementation project MasterMind, aims to identity the factors that promote or hinder therapists in the use of iCBT in depression care. Methods/Design: The uptake of iCBT by therapists in routine mental health care practice for the treatment of depression will be evaluated by a mixed method approach, to provide an understanding of the implementation factors (quantitative), and to ascertain the facilitating and hindering factors in the involvement of therapists in the implementation of iCBT (qualitative). The involvement of therapists in the implementation of iCBT is analysed following the RE-AIM framework on the five dimensions Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. This enables us to evaluate the reach of therapists, the impact of iCBT on depression care, the extent to which therapists adopt iCBT, the extent to which iCBT is delivered as intended, and how iCBT can be maintained over time. Discussion: The results will provide valuable insight into the role of therapists in the implementation of iCBT for depression in secondary mental health care settings. They will result in concrete recommendations for how therapists can be facilitated in implementing and up-scaling iCBT for depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective, accessible, and affordable depression treatment is of high importance considering the large personal and economic burden of depression. Internet-based treatment is considered a promising clinical and cost-effective alternative to current routine depression treatment strategies such as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, it is not clear whether research findings translate to routine clinical practice such as primary or specialized mental health care. The E-COMPARED project aims to gain knowledge on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment compared to treatment-as-usual in routine care.Methods/design: E-COMPARED will employ a pragmatic, multinational, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries. Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) will be recruited in primary care (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) or specialized mental health care (France, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). Regular care for depression is compared to "blended" service delivery combining mobile and Internet technologies with face-to-face treatment in one treatment protocol. Participants will be followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline to determine clinical improvements in symptoms of depression (primary outcome: Patient Health Questionnaire-9), remission of depression, and cost-effectiveness. Main analyses will be conducted on the pooled data from the eight countries (n = 1200 in total, 150 participants in each country).Discussion: The E-COMPARED project will provide mental health care stakeholders with evidence-based information and recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment.Trial Registration: France: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02542891 . Registered on 4 September 2015; Germany: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006866 . Registered on 2 December 2014; The Netherlands: Netherlands Trials Register NTR4962 . Registered on 5 January 2015; Poland: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02389660 . Registered on 18 February 2015; Spain: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684 . Registered on 8 January 2015; Sweden: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02449447 . Registered on 30 March 2015; Switzerland: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410616 . Registered on 2 April 2015; United Kingdom: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12388725 . Registered on 20 March 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]