Innovations in mental health services implementation: a report on state-level data from the U.S. Evidence-Based Practices Project

VA Center for the Study of Healthcare Provider Behavior, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Sepulveda, California, USA.
Implementation Science (Impact Factor: 3.47). 02/2006; 1:13. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-13
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Project has been investigating the implementation of evidence-based mental health practices (Assertive Community Treatment, Family Psychoeducation, Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment, Illness Management and Recovery, and Supported Employment) in state public mental health systems in the United States since 2001. To date, Project findings have yielded valuable insights into implementation strategy characteristics and effectiveness. This paper reports results of an effort to identify and classify state-level implementation activities and strategies employed across the eight states participating in the Project.
Content analysis and Greenhalgh et al's (2004) definition of innovation were used to identify and classify state-level activities employed during three phases of EBP implementation: Pre-Implementation, Initial Implementation and Sustainability Planning. Activities were coded from site visit reports created from documents and notes from key informant interviews conducted during two periods, Fall 2002-Spring 2003, and Spring 2004. Frequency counts and rank-order analyses were used to examine patterns of implementation activities and strategies employed across the three phases of implementation.
One hundred and six discreet implementation activities and strategies were identified as innovative and were classified into five categories: 1) state infrastructure building and commitment, 2) stakeholder relationship building and communications, 3) financing, 4) continuous quality management, and 5) service delivery practices and training. Implementation activities from different categories were employed at different phases of implementation.
Insights into effective strategies for implementing EBPs in mental health and other health sectors require qualitative and quantitative research that seeks to: a) empirically test the effects of tools and methods used to implement EBPs, and b) establish a stronger evidence-base from which to plan, implement and sustain such efforts. This paper offers a classification scheme and list of innovative implementation activities and strategies. The classification scheme offers potential value for future studies that seek to assess the effects of various implementation processes, and helps establish widely accepted standards and criteria that can be used to assess the value of innovative activities and strategies.


Available from: Jennifer L. Magnabosco, Apr 04, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Implementing specific evidence-based practices (EBPs) across a set of addiction treatment providers have been a persistent challenge. In the Advancing Recovery(AR) demonstration project, single state agencies, the entities that distribute federal funds for substance use disorder prevention and treatment services, worked in partnership with providers to increase the use of EBPs in the treatment of addiction. The project supported two cohorts of six 2-year awards. Field observations from the first year of implementation guided development of a multilevel framework (the Advancing Recovery Framework). Government entities and other payers can use the framework as a guide for implementing evidence-based clinical practices within treatment networks. The Advancing Recover Framework calls for a combination of policy and organizational changes at both the payer (government agency) and provider levels. Using the Advancing Recovery Framework, 11 of the 12 AR payer/provider partnerships increased use of clinical EPBs. This article identifies key payer policy changes applied during different phases of EBP program implementation. The public health benefit of the demonstration project was broader use of medication-assisted therapy and continuing care in addiction treatment services.
    03/2013; 2(1):11-20. DOI:10.5963/PHF0201002
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies is an important goal of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study, aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. Methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a web-based platform and conference call. Results: Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions, and suggested five additional strategies. 75% of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. Conclusions: This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy’s importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for concrete real-world scenarios that differ in terms of the evidence-based programs and practices being implemented and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort.
    Implementation Science 03/2015; 10(1). DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Providing comprehensive care to people with severe mental illness (SMI) involves moving beyond pharmacological treatment and ensuring access to a wide range of evidence-based psychosocial services. Numerous initiatives carried out in North America and internationally have promoted the widespread adoption of such services. Objectives of this rapid review were 3-fold: to identify these implementation initiatives, to describe the implementation strategies used to promote the uptake of psychosocial services, and to identify key issues related to the implementation of a broad range of services. Part 1 presents findings for objectives 1 and 2 of the review.
    Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 04/2014; 59(4):178-186. · 2.41 Impact Factor