Traumatic Brain Injury History Among Individuals Using Mental Health and Addictions Services: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been increasingly linked in population research to psychiatric problems as well as substance use and related harms, suggesting that individuals with TBI may also present more frequently to mental health and addictions (MHA) services. Little is known, however, about TBI history among MHA service users. The objectives of this review were to understand (i) the prevalence of TBI history among MHA service users; (ii) how TBI history is identified in MHA service settings; and (iii) predictors or outcomes of TBI that have been reported in MHA service users. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA Scoping Review Extension guidelines. A search for relevant literature was conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Embase as well as various gray literature sources. RESULTS: Twenty-eight relevant studies were identified. TBI was defined and operationalized heterogeneously between studies, and TBI history prevalence rates ranged considerably among the study samples. The included studies used varied methods to identify TBI history in MHA settings, such as clinical chart audits, single-item questions, or structured questionnaires (eg, Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire or Ohio State University TBI Identification Method). TBI history was most consistently associated with indicators of more severe substance use problems and mental health symptoms as well as increased aggression or risk to others. Studies reported less consistent findings regarding the relationship of TBI to physical health, cognitive impairment, functioning, risk to self, and type of psychiatric diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Screening for TBI history in MHA settings may contribute important information for risk assessment and care planning. However, to be clinically useful, assessment of TBI history will require consistent operationalization of TBI as well as use of validated screening methods.

How do researchers conceptualize and plan for the sustainability of their NIH R01 implementation projects?

BACKGROUND: Inadequate sustainability of implementation of evidence-based interventions has led to calls for research on how sustainability can be optimized. To advance our understanding of intervention sustainability, we explored how implementation researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their implemented interventions with studies funded by the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH). METHODS: We used sequential, mixed methods to explore how researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of the health interventions using (1) a document review of all active and completed US NIH R01 Grants and Equivalents reviewed within the Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (DIRH) Study Section between 2004 and 2016 and (2) a qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews with NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients. RESULTS: We found 277 R01 profiles within the DIRH study section listed on the US NIH RePORTER website including 84 that were eligible for screening. Of the 84 unique projects, 76 (90.5%) had primary implementation outcomes. Of the 76 implementation project profiles, 51 (67.1%) made references to sustainability and none referred to sustainability planning. In both profiles and interviews, researchers conceptualized sustainability primarily as the continued delivery of interventions, programs, or implementation strategies. Few researchers referenced frameworks with sustainability constructs and offered limited information on how they operationalized frameworks. Researchers described broad categories of approaches and strategies to promote sustainability and key factors that may influence researchers to plan for sustainability, such as personal beliefs, self-efficacy, perception of their role, and the challenges of the grant funding system. CONCLUSIONS: We explored how US NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their interventions. Our results identified the need to test, consolidate, and provide guidance on how to operationalize sustainability frameworks, and to develop strategies on how funders and researchers can advance sustainability research.

The perceived organizational impact of the gender gap across a Canadian department of medicine and proposed strategies to combat it: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the gender parity existing in medical schools for over three decades, women remain underrepresented in academic medical centers, particularly in senior ranks and in leadership roles. This has consequences for patient care, education, research, and workplace culture within healthcare organizations. This study was undertaken to explore the perspectives of faculty members at a single department of medicine on the impact of the existing gender gap on organizational effectiveness and workplace culture, and to identify systems-based strategies to mitigate the gap. METHODS: The study took place at a large university department of medicine in Toronto, Canada, with six affiliated hospitals. In this qualitative study, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted between May and September 2016 with full-time faculty members who held clinical and university-based appointments. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three authors independently reviewed the transcripts to determine a preliminary list of codes and establish a coding framework. A modified audit consensus coding approach was applied; a single analyst reviewed all the transcripts and a second analyst audited 20% of the transcripts in each round of coding. Following each round, inter-rater reliability was determined, discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and modifications were made as needed to the coding framework. The analysis revealed faculty members' perceptions of the gender gap, potential contributing factors, organizational impacts, and possible solutions to bridge the gap. RESULTS: Of the 43 full-time faculty members who participated in the survey (29 of whom self-identified as female), most participants were aware of the existing gender gap within academic medicine. Participants described social exclusion, reinforced stereotypes, and unprofessional behaviors as consequences of the gap on organizational effectiveness and culture. They suggested improvements in (1) the processes for recruitment, hiring, and promotion; (2) inclusiveness of the work environment; (3) structures for mentorship; and (4) ongoing monitoring of the gap. CONCLUSION: The existing gender gap in academic medicine may have negative consequences for organizational effectiveness and workplace culture but many systems-based strategies to mitigate the gap exist. Although these solutions warrant rigorous evaluation, they are feasible to institute within most healthcare organizations immediately.