Engagement in posttraumatic stress disorder treatment for veterans who experienced military sexual trauma and are diagnosed with serious mental illness.

It is important to ensure that veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma (MST) and have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to trauma-focused treatment. For veterans with serious mental illness (SMI), prior work documents decreased likelihood to receive trauma-focused care. This study focused on evaluating the engagement of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients diagnosed with PTSD and who have experienced MST in PTSD specialty care, as well as how this differs for veterans with SMI. Using VHA administrative data, all VHA patients who screened positive for MST prior to fiscal year 2019 (FY2019) were identified (N = 84,503). Based on information from FY2019, measures of psychiatric diagnosis status and VHA treatment participation were generated for all cohort members. Logistic regressions assessed whether there were differences in the likelihood to initiate PTSD care (1+ VHA PTSD specialty clinic encounter) or receive guideline-concordant levels of PTSD specialty care (8+ VHA PTSD specialty clinic encounter) during FY2019. Several other patient characteristics associated with decreased likelihood to receive VHA PTSD specialty servies were identified, including White race and older age. Patient SMI status was not significantly associated with likelihood to initiate or receive guideline-concordant levels of PTSD specialty care. Overall, PTSD treatment initiation was low (11% of veterans with SMI initiated PTSD specialty treatment, as opposed to 10% of veterans without SMI). Additional work is merited to identify ways that VHA is able to overcome barriers to trauma care participation experienced by persons who have experienced MST and been diagnosed with PTSD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Facilitating future implementation and translation to clinical practice: The Implementation Planning Assessment Tool for clinical trials.

Implementation assessment plans are crucial for clinical trials to achieve their full potential. Without a proactive plan to implement trial results, it can take decades for one-fifth of effective interventions to be adopted into routine care settings. The Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development is undergoing a systematic transformation to embed implementation planning in research protocols through the Cooperative Studies Program, its flagship clinical research program. This manuscript has two objectives: 1) to introduce an Implementation Planning Assessment (IPA) Tool that any clinical trialist may use to facilitate post-trial implementation of interventions found to be effective and 2) to provide a case study demonstrating the IPA Tool's use. The IPA Tool encourages study designers to initially consider rigorous data collection to maximize acceptability of the intervention by end-users. It also helps identify and prepare potential interested parties at local and national leadership levels to ensure, upon trial completion, interventions can be integrated into programs, technologies, and policies in a sustainable way. The IPA Tool can alleviate some of the overwhelming nature of implementation science by providing a practical guide based on implementation science principles for researchers desiring to scale up and spread effective, clinical trial-tested interventions to benefit patients.

Sustaining effective research/operational collaborations: Lessons learned from a National Partnered Evaluation Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: Effective research-operational partnerships require that researchers ask questions targeting top clinical operational priorities. However, disconnects exist between healthcare researchers and operational leadership that result in significant delays between discovery and implementation of breakthroughs in healthcare. OBJECTIVE: Using the Veterans Health Administration Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) Partnered Evaluation Initiative (PEI) as a case study, we identified relationship characteristics of collaborative research projects designed to address the research/operations gap. METHODS: An interview guide was developed focusing on areas identified as essential for effective research/operational partnerships from previous research. Investigators (N = 14) and their operational leadership partners (N = 14) representing 16 PEIs were interviewed by phone related to the characteristics of their partnerships. All investigators had had advanced degrees in fields related to healthcare delivery and administration and were affiliated with VHA research institutes. All operational partners served in national leadership roles within VHA operational offices. Detailed interview notes collected from interviews were coded and themes identified using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eight relationship themes were identified: leadership support, shared understanding, investment, trust, agreement on products, mutual benefit, adaptability, and collaboration. Most operational and investigator partners discussed the importance of leadership support, shared understanding, investment, trust and product agreement, suggesting that these may be more essential than other areas in supporting effective operations/research collaborations. One theme (mutual benefit) was mentioned by most investigators but only some operations partners, pointing to potential differences related to this area between the two groups. Facilitators of effective collaboration included obtaining formal leadership support, developing a shared understanding of partner priorities and needs, ongoing discussions about resource needs, expanding collaborations beyond the initial project, having a clearly defined plan, planning for flexibility, plans for regular communication, and active participation in project meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Partnership characteristics that facilitate effective collaboration include leadership support, shared understanding of planned work, investment, trust, and product agreement. Future research should assess the overall impact of partnered approaches to healthcare improvement within other large healthcare systems.