The Effect of a Change Agent on Use of Evidence-Based Mental Health Practices

Implementing Trauma Informed Care in Human Services: An Ecological Scoping Review

Trauma and toxic stress are growing public health concerns with increasing risks to morbidity and mortality. Trauma informed care is an organizational response that challenges providers to adapt principled based approaches that seek to reduce adverse effects of care and support healing. However, there is a scarcity of empirical evidence on how trauma informed care is implemented in systems. A preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis-compliant scoping review based on Arksey, and O’Malley’s five steps model was conducted. Four databases, PubMed, Scopus, Embase and PsychINFO were searched for English articles published since 2000. Studies were included if they reported on trauma informed care delivered by services that support adults and there was some reference to implementation or organizational implications. Of 1099 articles retrieved, 22 met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that trauma informed care is being implemented in a range of human services, including at the city/state level. While implementation research is still at an early stage in this field, the findings elucidate several challenges when implementing this approach across systems of care. An ecological lens is used to present findings at the macro, mezzo, and micro level, and these are further discussed with reference to practice, policy, and research.

Knowledge and attitudes of Implementation Support Practitioners-Findings from a systematic integrative review

BACKGROUND

It requires thoughtful planning and work to successfully apply and sustain research-supported interventions like healthcare treatments, social support, or preventive programs in practice. Implementation support practitioners (ISPs) such as facilitators, technical assistance providers, knowledge brokers, coaches or consultants may be involved to actively support the implementation process. This article presents knowledge and attitudes ISPs bring to their work.

METHODS

Building on a previously developed program logic, a systematic integrative review was conducted. Literature was sourced by searching nine electronic data bases, organizational websites, and by launching a call for publications among selected experts and social media. Article screening was performed independently by two researchers, and data from included studies were extracted by members of the research team and quality-assured by the lead researcher. The quality of included RCTs was assessed based on a framework by Hodder and colleagues. Thematic Analysis was used to capture information on knowledge and attitudes of ISPs across the included studies. Euler diagrams and heatmaps were used to present the results.

RESULTS

Results are based on 79 included studies. ISPs reportedly displayed knowledge about the clinical practice they work with, implementation / improvement practice, the local context, supporting change processes, and facilitating evidence-based practice in general. In particular, knowledge about the intervention to be implemented and its target population, specific improvement / implementation methods and approaches, organizational structures and sensitivities, training, and characteristics of (good) research was described in the literature. Seven themes describing ISPs' attitudes were identified: 1) professional, 2) motivated / motivating / encouraging / empowering, 3) empathetic / respectful / sensitive, 4) collaborative / inclusive, 5) authentic, 6) creative / flexible / innovative / adaptive, and 7) frank / direct / honest. Pertaining to a professional attitude, being responsive and focused were the most prevalent indicators across included publications.

CONCLUSION

The wide range and complexity of knowledge and attitudes found in the literature calls for a comprehensive and systematic approach to collaboratively develop a professional role for ISPs across disciplines. Embedding the ISP role in different health and social welfare settings will enhance implementation capacities considerably.

Can co-authorship networks be used to predict author research impact? A machine-learning based analysis within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy research

INTRODUCTION

Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition, with a relatively modest research capacity. In order to accelerate knowledge discovery, the AO Spine RECODE-DCM project has recently established the top priorities for DCM research. Uptake of these priorities within the research community will require their effective dissemination, which can be supported by identifying key opinion leaders (KOLs). In this paper, we aim to identify KOLs using artificial intelligence. We produce and explore a DCM co-authorship network, to characterise researchers' impact within the research field.

METHODS

Through a bibliometric analysis of 1674 scientific papers in the DCM field, a co-authorship network was created. For each author, statistics about their connections to the co-authorship network (and so the nature of their collaboration) were generated. Using these connectedness statistics, a neural network was used to predict H-Index for each author (as a proxy for research impact). The neural network was retrospectively validated on an unseen author set.

RESULTS

DCM research is regionally clustered, with strong collaboration across some international borders (e.g., North America) but not others (e.g., Western Europe). In retrospective validation, the neural network achieves a correlation coefficient of 0.86 (p<0.0001) between the true and predicted H-Index of each author. Thus, author impact can be accurately predicted using only the nature of an author's collaborations.

DISCUSSION

Analysis of the neural network shows that the nature of collaboration strongly impacts an author's research visibility, and therefore suitability as a KOL. This also suggests greater collaboration within the DCM field could help to improve both individual research visibility and global synergy.

Sustainability of a biobehavioral intervention implemented by therapists and sustainment in community settings

The ultimate aim of dissemination and implementation of empirically supported treatments (ESTs) in behavioral medicine is (a) sustainability of the therapist/provider's EST usage and (b) sustainment of EST delivery in the setting. Thus far, sustainability has been understudied, and the therapist and setting variables that may be influential are unclear. The purpose of the study was to test the therapists' sustainability of a cancer-specific EST using a prospective longitudinal design and examine its predictors. Oncology mental health therapists (N = 134) from diverse settings (N = 110) completed training in the biobehavioral intervention (BBI) and were provided with 6 months of support for implementation, with no support thereafter. BBI usage (percent of patients treated) was reported at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months. Using a generalized estimating equation with a logistic link function, 12-month sustainability (a nonsignificant change in usage from 6 to 12 months) was studied along with therapist, supervisor, and setting variables as predictors. BBI usage increased through 6 months and, importantly, usage was sustained from 6 (68.4% [95% CI = 62.2%-73.9%]) to 12 months (70.9% [95% CI = 63.6%-77.3%]), with sustainment in 66 settings (60.0%). Predictors of implementation-to-sustainability usage were therapists' early intentions to use the BBI (p < .001) and from the setting, supervisors' positive attitudes toward ESTs (p = .016). Adding to the DI literature, a health psychology intervention was disseminated, implemented, and found sustainable across diverse therapists and settings. Therapists and setting predictors of usage, if modified, might facilitate future sustainability/sustainment of ESTs.

Social network influences on integrated reporting adoption and implementation – a UK perspective

Purpose

This paper aims to investigate social influences on the UK integrated reporting (<IR>) adoption and implementation.

Design/methodology/approach

The study was based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with 36 senior executives actively involved in <IR> within 17 organisations.

Findings

Main social influences on adoption externally were reported design consultants and to a lesser extent, external auditors, primarily to legitimise <IR>. Internal influences were board support for <IR>, with the main driver being the mind-set of the CFO/Chairman to drive sustainability throughout the organisation or to regain trust in society. Social influences aiding further diffusion at the implementation stage came from three external sources: business networks; report design consultants; and external auditors. Internal influences in driving <IR> diffusion within organisations were identified in five functional areas, with finance, sustainability and communications functions exerting the greatest external influence on the diffusion of <IR>.

Research limitations/implications

This research study was limited by the small sample of organisations that participated, although significant efforts were made to ensure that the sample incorporated the majority of early adopter UK organisations who demonstrated best practice in <IR>. Therefore, the findings are specific to the research context and do not represent statistical generalisations.

Practical implications

Empirical evidence identifying social influences from a practitioner perspective provides recommendations as to how <IR> may be further diffused in the future.

Social implications

<IR> creates the potential to significantly improve the long-term health of corporations and the external environment they impact through consideration of the three indivisible and integrated dimensions of sustainable development, the economy, society and the environment and can contribute to a sustainable society by providing the opportunity for organisations to respond to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This highlights the significance of the research, which aims to gain insights into <IR> social influences which can assist in the adoption and implementation of <IR>.

Originality/value

This is the first comprehensive study of social influences on the <IR> adoption and implementation practices in the UK. It incorporates recommendations to improve the likelihood of subsequent adoption and diffusion of <IR> based on the findings.

Therapist training in evidence-based interventions for mental health: A systematic review of training approaches and outcomes

A lack of effective therapist training is a major barrier to evidence-based intervention (EBI) delivery in the community. Systematic reviews published nearly a decade ago suggested that traditional EBI training leads to higher knowledge but not more EBI use, indicating that more work is needed to optimize EBI training and implementation. This systematic review synthesizes the training literature published since 2010 to evaluate how different training models (workshop, workshop with consultation, online training, train-the-trainer, and intensive training) affect therapists' knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. Results and limitations for each approach are discussed. Findings show that training has advanced beyond provision of manuals and brief workshops; more intensive training models show promise for changing therapist behavior. However, methodological issues persist, limiting conclusions and pointing to important areas for future research.

Implementation support practitioners - a proposal for consolidating a diverse evidence base

Background

Workforce development for implementation practice has been identified as a grand challenge in health services. This is due to the embryonic nature of the existing research in this area, few available training programs and a general shortage of frontline service staff trained and prepared for practicing implementation in the field. The interest in the role of “implementation support” as a way to effectively build the implementation capacities of the human service sector has therefore increased. However, while frequently used, little is known about the skills and competencies required to effectively provide such support.

Main body

To progress the debate and the research agenda on implementation support competencies, we propose the role of the “implementation support practitioner” as a concept unifying the multiple streams of research focused on e.g. consultation, facilitation, or knowledge brokering. Implementation support practitioners are professionals supporting others in implementing evidence-informed practices, policies and programs, and in sustaining and scaling evidence for population impact. They are not involved in direct service delivery or management and work closely with the leadership and staff needed to effectively deliver direct clinical, therapeutic or educational services to individuals, families and communities. They may be specialists or generalists and be located within and/or outside the delivery system they serve. To effectively support the implementation practice of others, implementation support practitioners require an ability to activate implementation-relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes, and to operationalize and apply these in the context of their support activities. In doing so, they aim to trigger both relational and behavioral outcomes. This thinking is reflected in an overarching logic outlined in this article.

Conclusion

The development of implementation support practitioners as a profession necessitates improved conceptual thinking about their role and work and how they enable the uptake and integration of evidence in real world settings. This article introduces a preliminary logic conceptualizing the role of implementation support practitioners informing research in progress aimed at increasing our knowledge about implementation support and the competencies needed to provide this support.

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Local opinion leaders (OLs) are individuals perceived as credible and trustworthy, who disseminate and implement best evidence, for instance through informal one-to-one teaching or community outreach education visits. The use of OLs is a promising strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of local opinion leaders to improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice and patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers on 3 July 2018, together with searching reference lists of included studies and contacting experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised studies comparing the effects of local opinion leaders, either alone or with a single or more intervention(s) to disseminate evidence-based practice, with no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s). Eligible studies were those reporting objective measures of professional performance, for example, the percentage of patients being prescribed a specific drug or health outcomes, or both. We included all studies independently of the method used to identify OLs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane procedures in this review. The main comparison was (i) between any intervention involving OLs (OLs alone, OLs with a single or more intervention(s)) versus any comparison intervention (no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s)). We also made four secondary comparisons: ii) OLs alone versus no intervention, iii) OLs alone versus a single intervention, iv) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s), and v) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies, involving more than 337 hospitals, 350 primary care practices, 3005 healthcare professionals, and 29,167 patients (not all studies reported this information). A majority of studies were from North America, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Eighteen of these studies (21 comparisons, 71 compliance outcomes) contributed to the median adjusted risk difference (RD) for the main comparison. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 30 months). The results suggested that the OL interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice (10.8% absolute improvement in compliance, interquartile range (IQR): 3.5% to 14.6%; moderate-certainty evidence).Results for the secondary comparisons also suggested that OLs probably improve compliance with evidence-based practice (moderate-certainty evidence): i) OLs alone versus no intervention: RD (IQR): 9.15% (-0.3% to 15%); ii) OLs alone versus a single intervention: RD (range): 13.8% (12% to 15.5%); iii) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s): RD (IQR): 7.1% (-1.4% to 19%); iv) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention: RD (IQR):10.25% (0.6% to 15.75%).It is uncertain if OLs alone, or in combination with other intervention(s), may lead to improved patient outcomes (3 studies; 5 dichotomous outcomes) since the certainty of evidence was very low. For two of the secondary comparisons, the IQR included the possibility of a small negative effect of the OL intervention. Possible explanations for the occasional negative effects are, for example, the possibility that the OLs may have prioritised some outcomes, at the expense of others, or that an unaccounted outcome difference at baseline, may have given a faulty impression of a negative effect of the intervention at follow-up. No study reported on costs or cost-effectiveness.We were unable to determine the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to identifying OLs, as most studies used the sociometric method. Nor could we determine which methods used by OLs to educate their peers were most effective, as the methods were poorly described in most studies. In addition, we could not determine whether OL teams were more effective than single OLs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence-based practice, but the effectiveness varies both within and between studies.The effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The costs and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention(s) is unknown. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in types of intervention, setting, and outcomes. In most studies, the role and actions of the OL were not clearly described, and we cannot, therefore, comment on strategies to enhance their effectiveness. It is also not clear whether the methods used to identify OLs are important for their effectiveness, or whether the effect differs if education is delivered by single OLs or by multidisciplinary OL teams. Further research may help us to understand how these factors affect the effectiveness of OLs.

Understanding Innovation in Homeless Service Provision: A Study of Frontline Providers' Values-Readiness for Change

Service innovation for adults experiencing mental illness and homelessness typically involves shifting from treatment-led, staircase models toward recovery-oriented, Housing-First models. Aligning frontline service providers' values to those embedded within newer models is an important, but under-investigated, influence on the innovation process. To assess values alignment in this context, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with frontline providers in staircase services in Ireland (n = 50). Data showed that, while their values mostly aligned to the treatment-led model, there was meaningful evidence of more recovery-oriented values, too. Strategies to enhance innovation through values-alignment are discussed.

A Cross-Site Partnership to Examine Implementation and Sustainability of a School-Based Trauma Program

Objectives

Schools have been identified as an ideal setting for increasing access to mental health services particularly for underserved minority youth. The emerging field of implementation science has begun to systematically investigate strategies for more efficiently integrating evidence-based practices into community settings. Significantly less translational research has focused specifically on the school setting. To address this need, we examined the implementation of a school-based trauma intervention across three distinct regions.

Design

We conducted key informant interviews guided by Mendel's Framework of Dissemination in Health Services Intervention Research with multiple school stakeholders to examine what school organizational characteristics influence the adoption and implementation process and sustainability of Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS). Participants were selected from schools in three geographic regions in the United States: Western, Midwestern, and Southern.

Results

Our findings reveal that while sites had some common organizational factors that appeared to facilitate implementation, regions differed in how they compensated for less robust implementation domains. Across all regions, school stakeholders recognized the need for services to support students impacted by trauma. In the Western region, there was no centralized district policy for implementation; therefore, implementation was facilitated by school-level change agents and supervision support from the district mental health unit. In the Midwestern region, centralized district policies drove implementation. In both the Midwestern and Southern regions, implementation was facilitated by collaboration with a local mental health agency.

Conclusions

This study contributes to the paucity of empirical information on the organizational factors that influence the implementation of evidence-based mental health interventions in schools. Our findings reveal that different implementation strategies across policies, structures, and resources can result in implementation of a school-based intervention. Frameworks such as Mendel's can be helpful in identifying areas of strength and improvement of implementation within a school organization.

Use of evidence-based interventions in child welfare: Do attitudes matter?

Implementation of evidence-based programs in progressed slowly, with the majority of services in child welfare settings lacking empirical evidence for effectiveness. In other settings, research has identified providers' attitudes about evidence-based practices (EBPs) as a potential barrier to adoption of EBPs. As little research has focused on the role of attitudes in influencing use after training in an EBP in child welfare, the potential for attitudes to impede implementation efforts in child welfare is unclear. This study addressed this question in a sample of 55 caseworkers and therapists randomly assigned to enhanced support to use an EBP following training or a training-only condition. Information on providers' use of the intervention after training and their attitudes about EBPs were measured for up to five time points. Results indicate that attitudes did not predict providers' use of the EBP, and attitudes did not change overall or in the enhanced condition that provided greater exposure to the intervention. Providers perceived of requirements to use a practice as more influential in their use than their openness to EBPs. However, those who were more open to EBPs were more likely to participate in implementation support after the training, suggesting that openness facilitates participation in activities that support use of a new intervention.