Replicating dissemination and identifying mechanisms of implementation of an empirically supported treatment

Oncology mental health providers' adaptation of an evidence-based intervention: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Adaptations are intentional modifications maximizing the fit of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) in new context. Little is known about EBI adaptation within psychosocial oncology. Guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME), this mixed-methods study describes oncology mental health providers' planned adaptations to a psychosocial oncology EBI and examines the relationship between planned adaptations and longitudinal EBI usage.

METHODS

Providers (N = 128) were social workers (47%) and psychologists (40%) practicing in community settings (44%) or academic medical centers (41%). They attended a 3-day training on a multicomponent psychosocial oncology EBI, the Biobehavioral Intervention (BBI). During training, providers prepared an "adaptation plan" describing necessary adaptations to BBI and rationales for change. Qualitative data from adaptation plans were analyzed using directed content analysis. Linear mixed models examined the relationship between adaptation characteristics (number, similarity to the manualized BBI) and EBI usage across 12 months post-training.

RESULTS

Three sets of qualitative themes reflecting FRAME elements emerged: (1) content modifications (e.g., shortening/condensing, selecting elements, adding/removing elements); (2) contextual changes (e.g., alternative group formats); and (3) reasons for adaptations (e.g., organization/setting, provider, and recipient factors). Neither number of adaptations nor adaptation similarity were associated with BBI usage across 12 months post-training.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study is the first to characterize oncology mental health providers' planned adaptations to a psychosocial oncology EBI. Planned adaptations did not increase usage, but importantly they did not decrease usage. The adaptation process enabled providers to make thoughtful adaptation choices, with implementation successful irrespective of setting constraints.

A structured approach to applying systems analysis methods for examining implementation mechanisms

BACKGROUND

It is challenging to identify and understand the specific mechanisms through which an implementation strategy affects implementation outcomes, as implementation happens in the context of complex, multi-level systems. These systems and the mechanisms within each level have their own dynamic environments that change frequently. For instance, sequencing may matter in that a mechanism may only be activated indirectly by a strategy through another mechanism. The dosage or strength of a mechanism may vary over time or across different health care system levels. To elucidate the mechanisms relevant to successful implementation amidst this complexity, systems analysis methods are needed to model and manage complexity.

METHODS

The fields of systems engineering and systems science offer methods-which we refer to as systems analysis methods-to help explain the interdependent relationships between and within systems, as well as dynamic changes to systems over time. When applied to studying implementation mechanisms, systems analysis methods can help (i) better identify and manage unknown conditions that may or may not activate mechanisms (both expected mechanisms targeted by a strategy and unexpected mechanisms that the methods help detect) and (ii) flexibly guide strategy adaptations to address contextual influences that emerge after the strategy is selected and used.

RESULTS

In this paper, we delineate a structured approach to applying systems analysis methods for examining implementation mechanisms. The approach includes explicit steps for selecting, tailoring, and evaluating an implementation strategy regarding the mechanisms that the strategy is initially hypothesized to activate, as well as additional mechanisms that are identified through the steps. We illustrate the approach using a case example. We then discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach, as well as when these steps might be most appropriate, and suggest work to further the contributions of systems analysis methods to implementation mechanisms research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our approach to applying systems analysis methods can encourage more mechanisms research efforts to consider these methods and in turn fuel both (i) rigorous comparisons of these methods to alternative mechanisms research approaches and (ii) an active discourse across the field to better delineate when these methods are appropriate for advancing mechanisms-related knowledge.