A systematic review to determine the effect of strategies to sustain chronic disease prevention interventions in clinical and community settings: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of this review is to synthesise the effect of strategies aiming to sustain the implementation of evidenced-based interventions (EBIs) targeting key health behaviours associated with chronic disease (i.e. physical inactivity, poor diet, harmful alcohol use, and tobacco smoking) in clinical and community settings. The field of implementation science is bereft of an evidence base of effective sustainment strategies, and as such, this review will provide important evidence to advance the field of sustainability research. METHODS: This systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Methods will follow Cochrane gold-standard review methodology. The search will be undertaken across multiple databases, adapting filters previously developed by the research team, data screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate, strategies will be coded using an adapted sustainability-explicit taxonomy, and evidence will be synthesised using appropriate methods (i.e. meta-analytic following Cochrane or non-meta-analytic following SWiM guidelines). We will include any randomised controlled study that targets any staff or volunteers delivering interventions in clinical or community settings. Studies which report on any objective or subjective measure of the sustainment of a health prevention policy, practice, or programme within any of the eligible settings will be included. Article screening, data extraction, risk of bias, and quality assessment will be performed independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). A random-effect meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the pooled effect of sustainment strategies separately by setting (i.e. clinical and community). Sub-group analyses will be undertaken to explore possible causes of statistical heterogeneity and may include the following: time period, single or multi-strategy, type of setting, and type of intervention. Differences between sub-groups will be statistically compared. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This will be the first systematic review to determine the effect of strategies designed to support sustainment on sustaining the implementation of EBIs in clinical and community settings. The findings of this review will directly inform the design of future sustainability-focused implementation trials. Further, these findings will inform the development of a sustainability practice guide for public health practitioners. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022352333.

How can a behavioral economics lens contribute to implementation science?

BACKGROUND: Implementation science in health is an interdisciplinary field with an emphasis on supporting behavior change required when clinicians and other actors implement evidence-based practices within organizational constraints. Behavioral economics has emerged in parallel and works towards developing realistic models of how humans behave and categorizes a wide range of features of choices that can influence behavior. We argue that implementation science can be enhanced by the incorporation of approaches from behavioral economics. Main body First, we provide a general overview of implementation science and ways in which implementation science has been limited to date. Second, we review principles of behavioral economics and describe how concepts from BE have been successfully applied to healthcare including nudges deployed in the electronic health record. For example, de-implementation of low-value prescribing has been supported by changing the default in the electronic health record. We then describe what a behavioral economics lens offers to existing implementation science theories, models and frameworks, including rich and realistic models of human behavior, additional research methods such as pre-mortems and behavioral design, and low-cost and scalable implementation strategies. We argue that insights from behavioral economics can guide the design of implementation strategies and the interpretation of implementation studies. Key objections to incorporating behavioral economics are addressed, including concerns about sustainment and at what level the strategies work. CONCLUSION: Scholars should consider augmenting implementation science theories, models, and frameworks with relevant insights from behavioral economics. By drawing on these additional insights, implementation scientists have the potential to boost efforts to expand the provision and availability of high quality care.

Specifying cross-system collaboration strategies for implementation: a multi-site qualitative study with child welfare and behavioral health organizations.

BACKGROUND: Cross-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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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.

Influences of specialty identity when implementing a new emergency department in Denmark: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Danish Health Authority recommended the implementation of new types of emergency departments. Organizational changes in the hospital sector challenged the role, identity, and autonomy of medical specialists. They tend to identify with their specialty, which can challenge successful implementation of change. However, investigations on specialty identity are rare in implementation science, and how the co-existence of different specialty identities influences the implementation of new emergency departments needs to be explored for the development of tailored implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to examine how medical specialty identity influences collaboration between physicians when implementing a new emergency department in Denmark. METHODS: Qualitative methods in the form of participants' observations at 13 oilcloth sessions (a micro-simulation method) were conducted followed up by 53 individual semi-structured interviews with participants from the oilcloth sessions. Out of the 53 interviews, 26 were conducted with specialists. Data from their interviews are included in this study. Data were analysed deductively inspired by Social Identity Theory. RESULTS: The analysis yielded three overarching themes: [1] ongoing creation and re-creation of specialty identity through boundary drawing; [2] social categorization and power relations; and [3] the patient as a boundary object. CONCLUSIONS: Specialty identity is an important determinant of collaboration among physicians when implementing a new emergency department. Specialty identity involves social categorization, which entails ongoing creation and re-creation of boundary drawing and exercising of power among the physicians. In some situations, the patient became a positive boundary object, increasing the possibility for a successful collaboration and supporting successful implementation, but direct expressions of boundaries and mistrust were evident. Both were manifested through a dominating power expressed through social categorization in the form of in- and out-groups and in an "us and them" discourse, which created distance and separation among physicians from different specialties. This distancing and separation became a barrier to the implementation of the new emergency department.

Instrumental variables for implementation science: exploring context-dependent causal pathways between implementation strategies and evidence-based interventions.

BACKGROUND: The impact of both implementation strategies (IS) and evidence-based interventions (EBI) can vary across contexts, and a better understanding of how and why this occurs presents fundamental but challenging questions that implementation science as a field will need to grapple with. We use causal epidemiologic methods to explore the mechanisms of why sharp distinctions between implementation strategies (IS) and efficacy of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) may fail to recognize that the effect of an EBI can be deeply intertwined and dependent on the context of the IS leading to its uptake. METHODS: We explore the use of instrumental variable (IV) analyses as a critical tool for implementation science methods to isolate three relevant quantities within the same intervention context when exposure to an implementation strategy is random: (1) the effect of an IS on implementation outcomes (e.g., uptake), (2) effect of EBI uptake on patient outcomes, and (3) overall effectiveness of the IS (i.e., ~ implementation*efficacy). We discuss the mechanisms by which an implementation strategy can alter the context, and therefore effect, of an EBI using the underlying IV assumptions. We illustrate these concepts using examples of the implementation of new ART initiation guidelines in Zambia and community-based masking programs in Bangladesh. RESULTS: Causal questions relevant to implementation science are answered at each stage of an IV analysis. The first stage assesses the effect of the IS (e.g., new guidelines) on EBI uptake (e.g., same-day treatment initiation). The second stage leverages the IS as an IV to estimate the complier average causal effect (CACE) of the EBI on patient outcomes (e.g., effect of same-day treatment initiation on viral suppression). The underlying assumptions of CACE formalize that the causal effect of EBI may differ in the context of a different IS because (1) the mechanisms by which individuals uptake an intervention may differ and (2) the subgroup of individuals who take up an EBI may differ. IV methods thus provide a conceptual framework for how IS and EBIs are linked and that the IS itself needs to be considered a critical contextual determinant. Moreover, it also provides rigorous methodologic tools to isolate the effect of an IS, EBI, and combined effect of the IS and EBI. DISCUSSION: Leveraging IV methods when exposure to an implementation strategy is random helps to conceptualize the context-dependent nature of implementation strategies, EBIs, and patient outcomes. IV methods formalize that the causal effect of an EBI may be specific to the context of the implementation strategy used to promote uptake. This integration of implementation science concepts and theory with rigorous causal epidemiologic methods yields novel insights and provides important tools for exploring the next generation of questions related to mechanisms and context in implementation science.

Bridges and Mechanisms: Integrating Systems Science Thinking into Implementation Research.

We present a detailed argument for how to integrate, or bridge, systems science thinking and methods with implementation science. We start by showing how fundamental systems science principles of structure, dynamics, information, and utility are relevant for implementation science. Then we examine the need for implementation science to develop and apply richer theories of complex systems. This can be accomplished by emphasizing a causal mechanisms approach. Identifying causal mechanisms focuses on the "cogs and gears" of public health, clinical, and organizational interventions. A mechanisms approach focuses on how a specific strategy will produce the implementation outcome. We show how connecting systems science to implementation science opens new opportunities for examining and addressing social determinants of health and conducting equitable and ethical implementation research. Finally, we present case studies illustrating successful applications of systems science within implementation science in community health policy, tobacco control, health care access, and breast cancer screening. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 45 is April 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Application of the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies to health intervention implementation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project developed a compilation of implementation strategies that are intended to standardize reporting and evaluation. Little is known about the application of ERIC in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed the literature on the use and specification of ERIC strategies for health intervention implementation in LMICs to identify gaps and inform future research. METHODS: We searched peer-reviewed articles published through March 2023 in any language that (1) were conducted in an LMIC and (2) cited seminal ERIC articles or (3) mentioned ERIC in the title or abstract. Two co-authors independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, then abstracted study, intervention, and implementation strategy characteristics of included studies. RESULTS: The final sample included 60 studies describing research from all world regions, with over 30% published in the final year of our review period. Most studies took place in healthcare settings (n = 52, 86.7%), while 11 (18.2%) took place in community settings and four (6.7%) at the policy level. Across studies, 548 distinct implementation strategies were identified with a median of six strategies (range 1-46 strategies) included in each study. Most studies (n = 32, 53.3%) explicitly matched implementation strategies used for the ERIC compilation. Among those that did, 64 (87.3%) of the 73 ERIC strategies were represented. Many of the strategies not cited included those that target systems- or policy-level barriers. Nearly 85% of strategies included some component of strategy specification, though most only included specification of their action (75.2%), actor (57.3%), and action target (60.8%). A minority of studies employed randomized trials or high-quality quasi-experimental designs; only one study evaluated implementation strategy effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: While ERIC use in LMICs is rapidly growing, its application has not been consistent nor commonly used to test strategy effectiveness. Research in LMICs must better specify strategies and evaluate their impact on outcomes. Moreover, strategies that are tested need to be better specified, so they may be compared across contexts. Finally, strategies targeting policy-, systems-, and community-level determinants should be further explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021268374.

Using the matrixed multiple case study methodology to understand site differences in the outcomes of a Hybrid Type 1 trial of a peer-led healthy lifestyle intervention for people with serious mental illness.

Site differences in implementation trial outcomes are common but often not examined. In a Hybrid Type 1 trial examining the effectiveness-implementation of a peer-led group life-style balance (PGLB) intervention for people with serious mental illness (SMI) in three supportive housing agencies, we found that PGLB recipients' physical health outcomes differed by study sites. The matrixed multiple case study methodology was used to explore how implementation outcomes and changes in context of usual care (UC) services contributed to these site differences. Two implementation outcomes (i.e. PGLB fidelity ratings and intervention recipients' acceptability of PGLB and UC) and changes in healthcare services integration at the study sites were examined. ANOVAs were used to examine site differences in fidelity ratings and client satisfaction. Directed content analysis was used to analyze leadership interviews to identify changes in the context of UC services. Site 3 showed a trend approaching significance (P = .05) towards higher fidelity ratings. High levels of satisfaction with PGLB were reported at all sites. Significant differences in PGLB recipients' satisfaction with UC were found, with Site 3 reporting the lowest levels of satisfaction. Agency leaders reported an increase in prioritizing client's health throughout the trial with sites differing in how these priorities were put into action. Differences in PGLB recipients' satisfaction with UC, and changes in healthcare service integration seemed to have contributed to the site differences in our trial. The matrixed multiple case study methodology is a useful approach to identify implementation outcomes contributing to the heterogeneity of multisite implementation trial results.

A healthy lifestyle intervention delivered by people with lived experience of serious mental illness (SMI) led to improved health outcomes among participants living with SMI in three supportive housing agencies, but these outcomes differed by study sites. This study aimed to identify which factors influenced these site differences in study outcomes by examining if the intervention was delivered as intended, intervention recipients' satisfaction with the intervention and the pre-existing health care services delivered at each study site, and what changes occurred in health care services offered at each of the supportive housing agencies throughout the study. The intervention was found to have high levels of satisfaction across all three agencies but the agency which had the best outcomes also had the highest levels of intervention delivery adherence and the lowest levels of intervention recipients' satisfaction with existing health care services. Additionally, during the study period, the same agency described minimal changes in their existing health care services while the other two agencies were found to have made more significant changes integrating health care services to their day-to-day operations. As a result, findings from this study emphasize the importance of understanding the context in which interventions are delivered in routine practice settings to ensure their overall success.

Learning to Prioritize Our Collaborative Opportunities: Overcoming the Bright Shiny Object Syndrome.

ABSTRACT: There are multiple opportunities to participate in team science, leading to long-term benefits (eg, research impact, novelty, productivity). Scholars are not well-trained in how to choose among these opportunities, often learning via trial and error. The ability to navigate collaborations is framed by several principles and considerations: (1) locus of control (what control we have over our own behavior) and how it affects academic job satisfaction; (2) the scarcity mindset that may manifest as a result of the fear of missing future opportunities; and (3) power dynamics and inequities (eg, among women and racial/ethnic minority individuals). To provide a more systematic approach to weighing academic opportunities, the authors offer 30 questions across six overlapping domains. The domains include: the big picture (eg, Is the opportunity a building block for your career?), context (eg, How much do you have on your plate?), person (eg, Who is asking?), team (eg, Is the team productive?), role (eg, Will you lead or assist?), and outcomes (eg, Might the opportunity lead to publications and/or grants?). We offer advice for decision-making. For example, when presented with an opportunity involving a significant time commitment, it is useful to allow at least 24 hours before deciding. The authors offer advice and sample language for communicating your decision. Although every situation is different, there are several fundamental issues and questions to consider when one is presented with a new opportunity-these questions are suggested for mentors and mentees.

Using audit and feedback to guide tailored implementations of measurement-based care in community mental health: a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is an implementation strategy that can facilitate implementation tailoring by identifying gaps between desired and actual clinical care. While there are several theory-based propositions on which A&F components lead to better implementation outcomes, many have not been empirically investigated, and there is limited guidance for stakeholders when applying A&F in practice. The current study aims to illustrate A&F procedures in six community mental health clinics, with an emphasis on reporting A&F components that are relevant to theories of how feedback elicits behavior change. METHODS: Six clinics from a larger trial using a tailored approach to implement measurement-based care (MBC) were analyzed for feedback content, delivery mechanisms, barriers to feedback, and outcomes of feedback using archival data. Pattern analysis was conducted to examine relations between A&F components and changes in MBC use. RESULTS: Several sites utilized both aggregate and individualized data summaries, and data accuracy concerns were common. Feedback cycles featuring individual-level clinician data, data relevant to MBC barriers, and information requested by data recipients were related to patterns of increased MBC use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support extant theory, such as Feedback Intervention Theory. Mental health professionals wishing to apply A&F should consider establishing reciprocal feedback mechanisms on the quality and amount of data being received and adopting specific roles communicating and addressing data quality concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02266134.

A systematic review to determine the effect of strategies to sustain chronic disease prevention interventions in clinical and community settings: study protocol.

Background: The primary purpose of this review is to synthesise the effect of strategies aiming to sustain the implementation of evidenced based interventions (EBIs) targeting key health behaviours associated with chronic disease (i.e., physical inactivity, poor diet, harmful alcohol use and tobacco smoking) in clinical and community settings. The field of implementation science is bereft of an evidence base of effective sustainment strategies, and as such this review will provide important evidence to advance the field of sustainability research. Methods: This systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) checklist (Additional file 1). Methods will follow Cochrane gold-standard review methodology. The search will be undertaken across multiple databases, adapting filters previously developed by the research team; data screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate; strategies will be coded using an adapted sustainability-explicit taxonomy; evidence will be synthesised using appropriate methods (i.e. meta-analytic following Cochrane or non-meta-analytic following SWiM guidelines). We will include any randomised controlled study that targets any staff or volunteers delivering interventions in clinical or community settings. Studies which report on any objective or subjective measure of the sustainment of a health prevention policy, practice, or program within any of the eligible settings will be included. Article screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment will be performed independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). A random effect meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the pooled effect of sustainment strategies separately by setting (i.e. clinical and community). Sub-group analyses will be undertaken to explore possible causes of statistical heterogeneity and may include: time period, single or multi strategy, type of setting and type of intervention. Differences between sub-groups will be statistically compared. Discussion/Conclusion: This will be the first systematic review to determine the effect of strategies designed to support sustainment on sustaining the implementation of EBIs in clinical and community settings. The findings of this review will directly inform the design of future sustainability-focused implementation trials. Further, these findings will inform the development of a sustainability practice guide for public health practitioners. Registration: This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42022352333).

Champion and audit and feedback strategy fidelity and their relationship to depression intervention fidelity: A mixed method study.

Background: Globally, mental health disorders rank as the greatest cause of disability. Low and middle-income countries (LMICs) hold a disproportionate share of the mental health burden, especially as it pertains to depression. Depression is highly prevalent among those with non-communicable diseases (NCDs), creating a barrier to successful treatment. While some treatments have proven efficacy in LMIC settings, wide dissemination is challenged by multiple factors, leading researchers to call for implementation strategies to overcome barriers to care provision. However, implementation strategies are often not well defined or documented, challenging the interpretation of study results and the uptake and replication of strategies in practice settings. Assessing implementation strategy fidelity (ISF), or the extent to which a strategy was implemented as designed, overcomes these challenges. This study assessed fidelity of two implementation strategies (a 'basic' champion strategy and an 'enhanced' champion + audit and feedback strategy) to improve the integration of a depression intervention, measurement based care (MBC), at 10 NCD clinics in Malawi. The primary goal of this study was to assess the relationship between the implementation strategies and MBC fidelity using a mixed methods approach. Methods: We developed a theory-informed mixed methods fidelity assessment that first combined an implementation strategy specification technique with a fidelity framework. We then created corresponding fidelity indicators to strategy components. Clinical process data and one-on-one in-depth interviews with 45 staff members at 6 clinics were utilized as data sources. Our final analysis used descriptive statistics, reflexive-thematic analysis (RTA), data merging, and triangulation to examine the relationship between ISF and MBC intervention fidelity. Results: Our mixed methods analysis revealed how ISF may moderate the relationship between the strategies and MBC fidelity. Leadership engagement and implementation climate were critical for clinics to overcome implementation barriers and preserve implementation strategy and MBC fidelity. Descriptive statistics determined champion strategy fidelity to range from 61 to 93% across the 10 clinics. Fidelity to the audit and feedback strategy ranged from 82 to 91% across the 5 clinics assigned to that condition. MBC fidelity ranged from 54 to 95% across all clinics. Although correlations between ISF and MBC fidelity were not statistically significant due to the sample of 10 clinics, associations were in the expected direction and of moderate effect size. A coefficient for shared depression screening among clinicians had greater face validity compared to depression screening coverage and functioned as a proximal indicator of implementation strategy success. Conclusion: Fidelity to the basic and enhanced strategies varied by site and were influenced by leadership engagement and implementation climate. Champion strategies may benefit from the addition of leadership strategies to help address implementation barriers outside the purview of champions. ISF may moderate the relationship between strategies and implementation outcomes.

Understanding tailoring to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions in healthcare: The CUSTOMISE research programme protocol.

Although there are effective evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to prevent, treat and coordinate care for chronic conditions they may not be adopted widely and when adopted, implementation challenges can limit their impact.  Implementation strategies are "methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a clinical program or practice". There is some evidence to suggest that to be more effective,  strategies should be tailored; that is, selected and designed to address specific determinants which may influence implementation in a given context. Despite the growing popularity of tailoring the concept is ill-defined, and the way in which tailoring is applied can vary across studies or lack detail when reported. There has been less focus on the part of tailoring where stakeholders prioritise determinants and select strategies, and the way in which theory, evidence and stakeholders' perspectives should be combined to make decisions during the process. Typically, tailoring is evaluated based on the effectiveness of the tailored strategy, we do not have a clear sense of the mechanisms through which tailoring works, or how to measure the "success" of the tailoring process. We lack an understanding of how stakeholders can be involved effectively in tailoring and the influence of different approaches on the outcome of tailoring. Our research programme, CUSTOMISE (Comparing and Understanding Tailoring Methods for Implementation Strategies in healthcare) will address some of these outstanding questions and generate evidence on  the feasibility, acceptability, and efficiency of different tailoring approaches, and build capacity in implementation science in Ireland, developing and delivering training and supports for, and network of, researchers and implementation practitioners. The evidence generated across the studies conducted as part of CUSTOMISE will bring greater clarity, consistency, coherence, and transparency to tailoring, a key process in implementation science.

Team-focused implementation strategies to improve implementation of mental health screening and referral in rural Children's Advocacy Centers: study protocol for a pilot cluster randomized hybrid type 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Children'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. METHODS: We 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). CONCLUSIONS: Targeting 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 REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05679154 . Registered on January 10, 2023.

On-the-Go Adaptation of Implementation Approaches and Strategies in Health: Emerging Perspectives and Research Opportunities.

In many cases, implementation approaches (composed of one or more strategies) may need to change over time to work optimally. We use a literature review to inform a mechanistic analysis of such on-the-go adaptations. We suggest that such adaptations of implementation strategies consist of three necessary steps. The first component is the initial effect of the implementation approach on intended implementation, service delivery, or clinical outcomes. Second, these initial effects must in turn be used to modify, alter, intensify, or otherwise change the implementation approach. Third, the modified approach itself has effects. Conceiving of adaptation as all three steps implies that a full understanding of adaptation involves (a) a sense of initial effects, (b) conceptualizing and documenting content and rationale for changes in approach (e.g., alteration, intensification), and (c) the effects of the changed approach (including how the latter effects depend on initial effects). Conceptualizing these steps can help researchers ask questions about adaptation (e.g., thresholds for change, dosing, potentiation, sequencing) to advance our understanding of implementation strategies.

Refining Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy surveys using cognitive interviews with frontline providers.

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Starting 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. RESULTS: Twelve 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%). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive 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.

The Implementation Playbook: study protocol for the development and feasibility evaluation of a digital tool for effective implementation of evidence-based innovations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based innovations can improve health outcomes, but only if successfully implemented. Implementation can be complex, highly susceptible to failure, costly and resource intensive. Internationally, there is an urgent need to improve the implementation of effective innovations. Successful implementation is best guided by implementation science, but organizations lack implementation know-how and have difficulty applying it. Implementation support is typically shared in static, non-interactive, overly academic guides and is rarely evaluated. In-person implementation facilitation is often soft-funded, costly, and scarce. This study seeks to improve effective implementation by (1) developing a first-in-kind digital tool to guide pragmatic, empirically based and self-directed implementation planning in real-time; and (2) exploring the tool's feasibility in six health organizations implementing different innovations. METHODS: Ideation emerged from a paper-based resource, The Implementation Game©, and a revision called The Implementation Roadmap©; both integrate core implementation components from evidence, models and frameworks to guide structured, explicit, and pragmatic planning. Prior funding also generated user personas and high-level product requirements. This study will design, develop, and evaluate the feasibility of a digital tool called The Implementation Playbook©. In Phase 1, user-centred design and usability testing will inform tool content, visual interface, and functions to produce a minimum viable product. Phase 2 will explore the Playbook's feasibility in six purposefully selected health organizations sampled for maximum variation. Organizations will use the Playbook for up to 24 months to implement an innovation of their choosing. Mixed methods will gather: (i) field notes from implementation team check-in meetings; (ii) interviews with implementation teams about their experience using the tool; (iii) user free-form content entered into the tool as teams work through implementation planning; (iv) Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change questionnaire; (v) System Usability Scale; and (vi) tool metrics on how users progressed through activities and the time required to do so. DISCUSSION: Effective implementation of evidence-based innovations is essential for optimal health. We seek to develop a prototype digital tool and demonstrate its feasibility and usefulness across organizations implementing different innovations. This technology could fill a significant need globally, be highly scalable, and potentially valid for diverse organizations implementing various innovations.

Child Adult Relationship Enhancement in Primary Care (PriCARE): study design/protocol for a randomized trial of a primary care-based group parenting intervention to prevent child maltreatment.

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment (CM) is a pervasive public health problem and there is a critical need for brief, effective, scalable prevention programs. Problematic parent-child relationships lie at the heart of CM. Parents who maltreat their children are more likely to have punitive parenting styles characterized by high rates of negative interaction and ineffective discipline strategies with over-reliance on punishment. Thus, parenting interventions that strengthen parent-child relationships, teach positive discipline techniques, decrease harsh parenting, and decrease child behavioral problems hold promise as CM prevention strategies. Challenges in engaging parents, particularly low-income and minority parents, and a lack of knowledge regarding effective implementation strategies, however, have greatly limited the reach and impact of parenting interventions. Child Adult Relationship Enhancement in Primary Care (PriCARE)/Criando Niños con CARIÑO is a 6-session group parenting intervention that holds promise in addressing these challenges because PriCARE/CARIÑO was (1) developed and iteratively adapted with input from racially and ethnically diverse families, including low-income families and (2) designed specifically for implementation in primary care with inclusion of strategies to align with usual care workflow to increase uptake and retention. METHODS: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms. Children, 2-6 years old with Medicaid/CHIP/no insurance, and their English- and Spanish-speaking caregivers recruited from pediatric primary care clinics in Philadelphia and North Carolina will be enrolled. Caregivers assigned to the intervention regimen will attend PriCARE/CARIÑO and receive usual care. Caregivers assigned to the control regimen will receive usual care only. The primary outcome is occurrence of an investigation for CM by child protective services during the 48 months following completion of the intervention. In addition, scores for CM risk, child behavior problems, harsh and neglectful parenting behaviors, caregiver stress, and caregiver-child interactions will be assessed as secondary outcome measures and for investigation of possible mechanisms of intervention-induced change. We will also identify PriCARE/CARIÑO implementation factors that may be barriers and facilitators to intervention referrals, enrollment, and attendance. DISCUSSION: By evaluating proximal outcomes in addition to the distal outcome of CM, this study, the largest CM prevention trial with individual randomization, will help elucidate mechanisms of change and advance the science of CM prevention. This study will also gather critical information on factors influencing successful implementation and how to optimize intervention referrals, enrollment, and attendance to inform future dissemination and practical applications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05233150) on February 1, 2022, prior to enrolling subjects.

An Examination of Factors Affecting State Legislators' Support for Parity Laws for Different Mental Illnesses.

Mental health parity legislation can improve mental health outcomes. U.S. state legislators determine whether state parity laws are adopted, making it critical to assess factors affecting policy support. This study examines the prevalence and demographic correlates of legislators' support for state parity laws for four mental illnesses- major depression disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, and anorexia/bulimia. Using a 2017 cross-sectional survey of 475 U.S. legislators, we conducted bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression. Support for parity was highest for schizophrenia (57%), PTSD (55%), and major depression (53%) and lowest for anorexia/bulimia (40%). Support for parity was generally higher among females, more liberal legislators, legislators in the Northeast region of the country, and those who had previously sought treatment for mental illness. These findings highlight the importance of better disseminating evidence about anorexia/bulimia and can inform dissemination efforts about mental health parity laws to state legislators.