Competition Among Mental Health Organizations: Environmental Drivers and Strategic Responses.

While mental health system reforms have sought to leverage competition in the private sector to improve service quality and costs, competition among mental health organizations is poorly understood. To inform future studies about the impact of policy and system reforms on mental health organizations and service delivery, this qualitative study explores (1) resources for which organizations compete most intensively, (2) drivers of competition, and (3) leaders' strategic organizational responses. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 15 organizational leaders (CEO's, executive directors) representing about 22% of organizations in the regional mental health market. Interviews covered leaders' perceptions about competition, and their strategic responses. Porter's seminal framework on competition was used to interpret codes and themes. Intensive competition for personnel was driven by workforce shortages, new for-profit organizations, and alternative employment opportunities. In response, organizations have attended to wages/benefits, recruitment, and retention. However, strong community need, expanded insurance coverage, and a history of local strategic responses that created service niches appeared to have minimized competition for financial resources in the region. Competition for funding and clients was expected to intensify under systems reform, and in anticipation, organizations were expanding services. Leaders also feared for the viability of smaller organizations in highly competitive environments. Consistent with theory on competition, mental health organizations compete and respond in ways that might improve services. However, the goals of privatization may have been unrealized because of minimal competition for funding and clients, and intense competition may undermine quality.

Perceptions Toward Mental Illness and Seeking Psychological Help among Bhutanese Refugees Resettled in the U.S.

This study examined perceptions toward mental health and seeking psychological care among Bhutanese refugees in a large Midwestern U.S. city. Bhutanese adults (n = 201) completed a community health needs assessment. Survey questions addressed beliefs toward mental health and seeking psychological care. Perceptions toward mental illness and receiving psychological help were generally negative among participants. Over 71% believed others would look unfavorably on a person who sought out a counselor. Participants who had less than a high school education, were 35 years and older, and lived in refugee camps for more than 20 years had significantly greater negative beliefs toward mental illness. Over one-third (34.8%) of participants reported access to counseling services as being somewhat of a problem or a serious problem. These findings may inform future research and interventions aimed at improving mental health among Bhutanese refugees.

Elucidating the influence of supervisors' roles on implementation climate.

BACKGROUND: Supervisors play an essential role in implementation by diffusing and synthesizing information, selling implementation, and translating top management's project plans to frontline workers. Theory and emerging evidence suggest that through these roles, supervisors shape implementation climate-i.e., the degree to which innovations are expected, supported, and rewarded. However, it is unclear exactly how supervisors carry out each of these roles in ways that contribute to implementation climate-this represents a gap in the understanding of the causal mechanisms that link supervisors' behavior with implementation climate. This study examined how supervisors' performance of each of these roles influences three core implementation climate domains (expectations, supports, and rewards). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sequenced behavioral health screening, assessment, and referral intervention was implemented within a county-based child welfare agency. We conducted 6 focus groups with supervisors and frontline workers from implementing work units 6 months post-implementation (n = 51) and 1 year later (n = 40) (12 groups total). Participants were asked about implementation determinants, including supervision and implementation context. We audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed focus groups using an open coding process during which the importance of the supervisors' roles emerged as a major theme. We further analyzed this code using concepts and definitions related to middle managers' roles and implementation climate. RESULTS: In this work setting, supervisors (1) diffused information about the intervention proactively, and in response to workers' questions, (2) synthesized information by tailoring it to workers' individual needs, (3) translated top managements' project plans into day-to-day tasks through close monitoring and reminders, and (4) justified implementation. All four of these roles appeared to shape the implementation climate by conveying strong expectations for implementation. Three roles (diffusing, synthesizing, and mediating) influenced climate by supporting workers during implementation. Only one role (diffusing) influenced climate by conveying rewards. CONCLUSIONS: Supervisors shaped implementation climate by carrying out four roles (diffusing, synthesizing, mediating, and selling). Findings suggest that the interaction of these roles convey expectations and support for implementation (two implementation climate domains). Our study advances the causal theory explaining how supervisors' behavior shapes the implementation climate, which can inform implementation practice.

Tracking implementation strategies: a description of a practical approach and early findings.

BACKGROUND: Published descriptions of implementation strategies often lack precision and consistency, limiting replicability and slowing accumulation of knowledge. Recent publication guidelines for implementation strategies call for improved description of the activities, dose, rationale and expected outcome(s) of strategies. However, capturing implementation strategies with this level of detail can be challenging, as responsibility for implementation is often diffuse and strategies may be flexibly applied as barriers and challenges emerge. We describe and demonstrate the development and application of a practical approach to identifying implementation strategies used in research and practice that could be used to guide their description and specification. METHODS: An approach to tracking implementation strategies using activity logs completed by project personnel was developed to facilitate identification of discrete strategies. This approach was piloted in the context of a multi-component project to improve children's access to behavioural health services in a county-based child welfare agency. Key project personnel completed monthly activity logs that gathered data on strategies used over 17 months. Logs collected information about implementation activities, intent, duration and individuals involved. Using a consensus approach, two sets of coders categorised each activity based upon Powell et al.'s (Med Care Res Rev 69:123-57, 2012) taxonomy of implementation strategies. RESULTS: Participants reported on 473 activities, which represent 45 unique strategies. Initial implementation was characterised by planning strategies followed by educational strategies. After project launch, quality management strategies predominated, suggesting a progression of implementation over time. Together, these strategies accounted for 1594 person-hours, many of which were reported by the leadership team that was responsible for project design, implementation and oversight. CONCLUSIONS: This approach allows for identifying discrete implementation strategies used over time, estimating dose, describing temporal ordering of implementation strategies, and pinpointing the major implementation actors. This detail could facilitate clear reporting of a full range of implementation strategies, including those that may be less observable. This approach could lead to a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to implement different innovations, the types of strategies that are most useful during specific phases of implementation, and how implementation strategies need to be adaptively applied throughout the course of a given initiative.