Implementation research and practice最新文献

Background: The public health impact of behavioral and biobehavioral interventions to prevent and treat mental health and substance use problems hinges on developing methods to strategically maximize their effectiveness, affordability, scalability, and efficiency.

Methods: The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an innovative, principled framework that guides the development of multicomponent interventions. Each phase of MOST (Preparation, Optimization, Evaluation) has explicit goals and a range of appropriate research methods to achieve them. Methods for attaining Optimization and Evaluation phase goals are well-developed. However, methods used in the Preparation phase are often highly researcher-specific, and concrete ways to achieve Preparation phase goals are a priority area for further development.

Results: We propose that the discover, design, build, and test (DDBT) framework provides a theory-driven and methods-rich roadmap for achieving the goals of the Preparation phase of MOST, including specifying the conceptual model, identifying and testing candidate intervention components, and defining the optimization objective. The DDBT framework capitalizes on strategies from the field of human-centered design and implementation science to drive its data collection methods.

Conclusions: MOST and DDBT share many conceptual features, including an explicit focus on implementation determinants, being iterative and flexible, and designing interventions for the greatest public health impact. The proposed synthesized DDBT/MOST approach integrates DDBT into the Preparation phase of MOST thereby providing a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research to bolster the success of intervention optimization.

Plain language summary: 1. What is already known about the topic? Optimizing behavioral interventions to balance effectiveness with affordability, scalability, and efficiency requires a significant investment in intervention development.2. What does this paper add? This paper provides a structured approach to integrating human-centered design principles into the Preparation phase of the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST).3. What are the implications for practice, research, or policy? The proposed synthesized model provides a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research in the Preparation phase of MOST that will ensure the success of intervention optimization and contribute to improving public health impact of mental health and substance use interventions.

Background: Initial results from the SCALA study demonstrated that training primary health care providers is an effective implementation strategy to increase alcohol screening in Colombia, Mexico and Peru, but did not show evidence of superior performance for the standard compared to the shorter training arm. This paper elaborates on those outcomes by examining the relationship of training-related process evaluation indicators with the alcohol screening practice.

Methods: A mix of convergent and exploratory mixed-methods design was employed. Data sources included training documentation, post-training questionnaires, observation forms, self-report forms and interviews. Available quantitative data were compared on outcome measure - providers' alcohol screening.

Results: Training reach was high: three hundred fifty-two providers (72.3% of all eligible) participated in one or more training or booster sessions. Country differences in session length reflected adaptation to previous topic knowledge and experience of the providers. Overall, 49% of attendees conducted alcohol screening in practice. A higher dose received was positively associated with screening, but there was no difference between standard and short training arms. Although the training sessions were well received by participants, satisfaction with training and perceived utility for practice were not associated with screening. Profession, but not age or gender, was associated with screening: in Colombia and Mexico, doctors and psychologists were more likely to screen (although the latter represented only a small proportion of the sample) and in Peru, only psychologists.

Conclusions: The SCALA training programme was well received by the participants and led to half of the participating providers conducting alcohol screening in their primary health care practice. The dose received and the professional role were the key factors associated with conducting the alcohol screening in practice.Plain Language Summary: Primary health care providers can play an important role in detecting heavy drinkers among their consulting patients, and training can be an effective implementation strategy to increase alcohol screening and detection. Existing training literature predominantly focuses on evaluating trainings in high-income countries, or evaluating their effectiveness rather than implementation. As part of SCALA (Scale-up of Prevention and Management of Alcohol Use Disorders in Latin America) study, we evaluated training as implementation strategy to increase alcohol screening in primary health care in a middle-income context. Overall, 72.3% of eligible providers attended the training and 49% of training attendees conducted alcohol screening in practice after attending the training. Our process evaluation suggests that simple intervention with sufficient time to practice, adapted to limited provider availab

Background: In light of short lengths of stay and proximity to communities of release, jails are well-positioned to intervene in opioid use disorder (OUD). However, a number of barriers have resulted in a slow and limited implementation.

Methods: This paper describes the development and testing of a Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) Implementation Checklist developed as part of a Building Bridges project, a two-year planning grant which supported 16 US jail systems as they prepared to implement or expand MOUD services.

Results: Although initially developed to track changes within sites participating in the initiative, participants noted its utility for identifying evidence-based benchmarks through which the successful implementation of MOUDs could be tracked by correctional administrators.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that this checklist can both help guide and illustrate progress toward vital changes facilitated through established processes and supports.

Plain language summary: People incarcerated in jails are more likely to have opioid use disorder than the general population. Despite this, jails in the United States (U.S.) often offer limited or no access to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD). The Building Bridges project was designed to address this gap in 16 U.S. jail systems as they prepared to implement or expand MOUD services. This article addresses the use of a MOUD checklist that was initially designed to help the jails track changes toward evidence-based benchmarks. The findings suggest that this checklist can both help guide and illustrate progress toward vital changes facilitated through established processes and supports.

Background: There is growing interest in the lived experience of professionals who provide implementation support (i.e., implementation support practitioners). However, there remains limited knowledge about their experiences and how those experiences can contribute to the knowledge base on what constitutes successful and sustainable implementation support models. This study aimed to examine pathways of implementation support practice, as described by experienced professionals actively supporting systems' uptake and sustainment of evidence to benefit children and families. Methods: Seventeen individuals with extensive experience providing implementation support in various settings participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and episode profile analysis approaches. Iterative diagramming was used to visualize the various pathways of implementation support practitioners' role reflection and transformation evidenced by the interview data. Results: Findings highlighted rich pathways of implementation support practitioners' role reflection and transformation. Participants described their roots in providing implementation support as it relates to implementing and expanding the use of evidence-based programs and practices in child and family services. Almost all participants reflected on the early stages of their careers providing implementation support and described a trajectory starting with the use of "push models," which evolved into "pull models" and eventually "co-creation or exchange models" of implementation support involving both technical and relational skills. Conclusions: Developing an implementation support workforce will require a deeper understanding of this lived experience to prevent repeated use of strategies observed to be unsuccessful by those most proximal to the work. The pathways for implementation practice in this study highlight impressive leaps forward in the field of implementation over the last 15 years and speaks to the importance of the professionals leading change efforts in this growth.

Plain language summary: Over the past few years, professionals in the field of implementation science have identified a growing gap between implementation research and implementation practice. While this issue has been highlighted informally, the field is lacking a shared understanding and clear way forward to reconcile this gap. In this paper, the authors describe how professionals providing implementation support have shifted their implementation practice over time through systematic observations of what works (and what does not work) for supporting and sustaining evidence use in service systems to improve population outcomes. The authors share the impressive leaps forward made in the field of implementation practice - from didactic training to responsive and tailored implementation strategies to co-created and relationship-based

Well-conducted mediation analyses have the potential to move implementation science forward by better understanding how or why implementation strategies cause their effects on outcomes. The AGReMA statement provides authors with recommendations for reporting primary and secondary mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. Improved reporting of studies that use mediation analyses could help produce publications that are complete, accurate, transparent, and reproducible.