Probation Officers' and Supervisors' Perspectives on Critical Resources for Implementing Specialty Mental Health Probation

Improving Health Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Application of an Implementation Science Framework

BACKGROUND

Interventions to improve racial equity in access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT) have focused primarily on patients, ignoring the contributions of clinicians, transplant centers, and health system factors. Obtaining access to LDKT is a complex, multi-step process involving patients, their families, clinicians, and health system functions. An implementation science framework can help elucidate multi-level barriers to achieving racial equity in LDKT and guide the implementation of interventions targeted at all levels.

METHODS

We adopted the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), an implementation science framework for racial equity in LDKT. The purpose was to provide a guide for assessment, inform intervention design, and support planning for the implementation of interventions.

RESULTS

We applied 4 main PRISM domains to racial equity in LDKT: Organizational Characteristics, Program Components, External Environment, and Patient Characteristics. We specified elements within each domain that consider perspectives of the health system, transplant center, clinical staff, and patients.

CONCLUSION

The applied PRISM framework provides a foundation for the examination of multi-level influences across the entirety of LDKT care. Researchers, quality improvement staff, and clinicians can use the applied PRISM framework to guide the assessment of inequities, support collaborative intervention development, monitor intervention implementation, and inform resource allocation to improve equity in access to LDKT.

The application of implementation science methods in correctional health intervention research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Improving access to high-quality healthcare for individuals in correctional settings is critical to advancing health equity in the United States. Compared to the general population, criminal-legal involved individuals experience higher rates of chronic health conditions and poorer health outcomes. Implementation science frameworks and strategies offer useful tools to integrate health interventions into criminal-legal settings and to improve care. A review of implementation science in criminal-legal settings to date is necessary to advance future applications. This systematic review summarizes research that has harnessed implementation science to promote the uptake of effective health interventions in adult criminal-legal settings.

METHODS

A systematic review of seven databases (Academic Search Premier, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, ProQuest Criminal Justice Database, ProQuest Sociological Abstracts, MEDLINE/PubMed) was conducted. Eligible studies used an implementation science framework to assess implementation outcomes, determinants, and/or implementation strategies in adult criminal-legal settings. Qualitative synthesis was used to extract and summarize settings, study designs, sample characteristics, methods, and application of implementation science methods. Implementation strategies were further analyzed using the Pragmatic Implementation Reporting Tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Studies implemented interventions to address infectious diseases (n=9), substance use (n=6), mental health (n=5), co-occurring substance use and mental health (n=2), or other health conditions (n=2). Studies varied in their operationalization and description of guiding implementation frameworks/taxonomies. Sixteen studies reported implementation determinants and 12 studies measured implementation outcomes, with acceptability (n=5), feasibility (n=3), and reach (n=2) commonly assessed. Six studies tested implementation strategies. Systematic review results were used to generate recommendations for improving implementation success in criminal-legal contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

The focus on implementation determinants in correctional health studies reflects the need to tailor implementation efforts to complex organizational and inter-agency contexts. Future studies should investigate policy factors that influence implementation success, design, and test implementation strategies tailored to determinants, and investigate a wider array of implementation outcomes relevant to criminal-legal settings, health interventions relevant to adult and juvenile populations, and health equity outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

A study protocol (CRD42020114111) was registered with Prospero.

Implementing evidence-based supported employment within specialty mental health probation: A hybrid type I implementation-effectiveness trial protocol

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illnesses who are involved in the criminal justice system face significant challenges in obtaining meaningful employment. Given the importance of employment in reducing recidivism, the field needs effective interventions to increase employment rates, address mental health needs, and reduce recidivism for justice-involved people with serious mental illnesses. Individual Placement and Support - Supported Employment (IPS-SE) improves employment outcomes among individuals with serious mental illnesses and has shown promising results when implemented with individuals with histories of justice involvement; however, IPS-SE has only been implemented in mental health service settings. Given lower levels of treatment engagement and completion among justice-involved populations, implementation of IPS-SE in specialty mental health probation (SMHP) is an opportunity to increase reach and engagement among justice-involved people with serious mental illnesses.

METHODS

This article describes a hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness study that aims to: (1) assess the implementation enablers and barriers, as well as the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of IPS-SE embedded within SMHP; (2) identify the multi-level factors (i.e., implementation determinants) that influence IPS-SE implementation within the context of a probation setting; and (3) assess the impact of IPS-SE on employment - our primary endpoint - and the impact of IPS-SE on a number of secondary outcomes and potential treatment mechanisms. The efficacy arm of the study will be a randomized controlled trial of 130 adults on community supervision who will either receive treatment as usual or IPS-SE. The implementation arm of the study will examine implementation determinants and implementation outcomes using qualitative methods.

Strategies for supervising people with mental illnesses on probation caseloads: results from a nationwide study

Probation officers are tasked with supervising the largest number of people living with mental illnesses in the criminal legal system, with an estimated 16-27% of individuals on probation identified as having a mental health condition. While academic research has recently focused on building the evidence base around the prototypical model of specialty mental health probation, less focus has been directed to the individual components of specialized mental health caseloads and other strategies agencies use to supervise people with mental illnesses. More specific information about these strategies would benefit probation agencies looking to implement or enhance supervision protocols for people with mental illnesses. This article describes the results from a nationwide study examining (1) probation agencies' mental health screening and identification methods; (2) characteristics of mental health caseloads, including eligibility criteria, officer selection, required training, and interfacing with service providers; and (3) other strategies agencies use to supervise people with mental illnesses beyond mental health caseloads. Strategies for identifying mental illnesses varied, with most agencies using risk needs assessments, self-report items asked during the intake process, or information from pre-sentencing reports. Less than a third of respondents reported using screening and assessment tools specific to mental health or having a system that tracks or "flags" mental illnesses. Results also showed wide variation in mental health training requirements for probation officers, as well as variation in the strategies used for supervising people with mental illnesses (e.g., mental health caseloads, embedded mental health services within probation, modified cognitive behavioral interventions). The wide variation in implementation of supervision strategies presents (1) an opportunity for agencies to select from a variety of strategies and tailor them to fit the needs of their local context and (2) a challenge in building the evidence base for a single strategy or set of strategies.

A Randomized Trial of Specialty Mental Health Probation: Measuring Implementation and Effectiveness Outcomes

Although the research on specialty mental health probation (SMHP) is promising, there have been no randomized controlled trials (RCT) of the prototypical model advanced in the research literature and little focus on SMHP implementation. This study assesses the adoption of SMHP in two counties and examines its impact on mental health and criminal justice outcomes. Researchers conducted a RCT within a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study to examine intervention adoption as well as mental health treatment engagement and criminal justice outcomes for 100 individuals with serious mental illnesses on probation in one rural and one urban county in a southeastern state. Randomization produced equivalent treatment (n = 47) and control (n = 53) groups with no statistically significant differences between groups on demographic or background characteristics. Compared to standard probation officers, SMHP officers addressed the mental health needs of individuals with serious mental illness (i.e., adoption) at higher rates (p < 0.001). Compared to individuals on standard caseloads, individuals on SMHP had a higher rate of mental health engagement (e.g., mental health assessment, attending treatment appointment; p < 0.050); however, more individuals on SMHP caseloads had a new crime violation during follow-up compared with individuals on standard caseloads (p < 0.01). In conclusions, results suggest successful adoption of the intervention and increased mental health engagement among those on SMHP caseloads. Results are consistent with the mixed findings on the impact of SMHP on improving criminal justice outcomes.