Jeffrey Roberts’s research while affiliated with Indiana University Bloomington and other places

In healthcare and related fields, there is often a gap between research and practice. Scholars have developed frameworks to support dissemination and implementation of best practices, such as the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, which shows how scientific innovations are conveyed to practitioners through tools, training, and technical assistance (TA). Underpinning those aspects of the model are evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI). However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that the approaches to and outcomes from CQI in healthcare vary considerably, and that more evaluative work is needed. Therefore, this paper describes an assessment of CQI processes within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network, a large TA/TTC system in the United States comprised of 39 distinct centers. We conducted key informant interviews ( n = 71 representing 28 centers in the Network) and three surveys (100% center response rates) focused on CQI, time/effort allocation, and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. We used data from each of these study components to provide a robust picture of CQI within a TA/TTC system, identifying Network-specific concepts, concerns about conflation of the GPRA data with CQI, and principles that might be studied more generally.

It is important to use evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs) to address major public health issues. However, those who use EBPs in real-world settings often require support in bridging the research-to-practice gap. In the US, one of the largest systems that provides such support is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network. As part of a large external evaluation of the Network, this study examined how TTCs determine which EBPs to promote and how to promote them. Using semi-structured interviews and pre-testing, we developed a “Determinants of Technology Transfer” survey that was completed by 100% of TTCs in the Network. Because the study period overlapped with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also conducted a retrospective pre/post-pandemic comparison of determinants. TTCs reported relying on a broad group of factors when selecting EBPs to disseminate and the methods to do so. Stakeholder and target audience input and needs were consistently the most important determinant (both before and during COVID-19), while some other determinants fluctuated around the pandemic (e.g., public health mandates, instructions in the funding opportunity announcements). We discuss implications of the findings for technology transfer and frame the analyses in terms of the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation.

Technology transfer centers (TTCs) facilitate the movement of evidence-based practices in behavioral healthcare from theory to practice. One of the largest such networks is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) TTC Network. This brief report shares findings from an organizational network analysis (ONA) of the network conducted as part of an external evaluation. For non-supervisory TTCs ( n = 36) across three focus areas (addiction, prevention, and mental health), the authors computed network density, harmonic closeness, and non-null dyadic reciprocity for five types of interactions (e.g., “collaborated in workgroups”), then, for each interaction type, used Welch’s T -test to compare mean harmonic closeness of standalone TTC grantees versus multiple-TTC grantees. ONA identified potentially isolated regional TTCs as well as mismatches between some centers’ desired scope and their network centrality and enabled investigation of broader questions around behavioral health support systems. The approach appears useful for evaluating TTCs and similar support networks.

Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) was developed in 2003 as an innovative model to facilitate continuing education and professional development. ECHO emphasizes ‘moving knowledge, not people.’ To accomplish this, ECHO programs use virtual collaboration and case-based learning to allow practitioners, including those in rural and underserved areas, to receive specialist training. The ECHO model has expanded rapidly and is now used in 44 countries. Preliminary research on ECHO’s efficacy and effectiveness has shown promising results, but evidence remains limited and appropriate research outcomes have not been clearly defined. To improve the evidence basis for ECHO, this study of 5 ECHO programs (cancer prevention/survivorship, integrated pain management, hepatitis C, HIV, and LGBTQ+ health care elucidated actionable insights about the ECHO programs and directions in which future evaluations and research might progress. This was a qualitative study following COREQ standards. A trained interviewer conducted 10 interviews and 5 focus groups with 25 unique, purposively sampled ECHO attendees (2 interviews and 1 focus group for each of the 5 programs). Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the general inductive approach, then reviewed for reliability. We identified four major categories (reasons to join ECHO, value of participating in ECHO, ways to improve ECHO, and barriers to participation) composed of 23 primary codes. We suggest that thematic saturation was achieved, and a coherent narrative about ECHO emerged for discussion. Participants frequently indicated they received valuable learning experiences and thereby changed their practice; rigorous trials of learning and patient-level outcomes are warranted. This study also found support for the idea that the ECHO model should be studied for its role in convening communities of practice and reducing provider isolation as an outcome in itself. Additional implications, including for interprofessional education and model evolution, were also identified and discussed.