Determinants of using children's mental health research in policymaking: variation by type of research use and phase of policy process

A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Implementation of Policies That Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health

Policy Points Earmarked tax policies for behavioral health are perceived as having positive impacts related to increasing flexible funding, suggesting benefits to expand this financing approach. Implementation challenges related to these earmarked taxes included tax base volatility that impedes long-term service delivery planning and inequities in the distribution of tax revenue. Recommendations for designing or revising earmarked tax policies include developing clear guidelines and support systems to manage the administrative aspects of earmarked tax programs, cocreating reporting and oversight structures with system and service delivery agents, and selecting revenue streams that are relatively stable across years.

CONTEXT

Over 200 cities and counties in the United States have implemented policies earmarking tax revenue for behavioral health services. This mixed-methods study was conducted with the aim of characterizing perceptions of the impacts of these earmarked tax policies, strengths and weaknesses of tax policy designs, and factors that influence decision making about how tax revenue is allocated for services.

METHODS

Study data came from surveys completed by 274 officials involved in behavioral health earmarked tax policy implementation and 37 interviews with officials in a sample of jurisdictions with these taxes-California (n = 16), Washington (n = 12), Colorado (n = 6), and Iowa (n = 3). Interviews primarily explored perceptions of the advantages and drawbacks of the earmarked tax, perceptions of tax policy design, and factors influencing decisions about revenue allocation.

FINDINGS

A total of 83% of respondents strongly agreed that it was better to have the tax than not, 73.2% strongly agreed that the tax increased flexibility to address complex behavioral health needs, and 65.1% strongly agreed that the tax increased the number of people served by evidence-based practices. Only 43.3%, however, strongly agreed that it was easy to satisfy tax-reporting requirements. Interviews revealed that the taxes enabled funding for services and implementation supports, such as training in the delivery of evidence-based practices, and supplemented mainstream funding sources (e.g., Medicaid). However, some interviewees also reported challenges related to volatility of funding, inequities in the distribution of tax revenue, and, in some cases, administratively burdensome tax reporting. Decisions about tax revenue allocation were influenced by goals such as reducing behavioral health care inequities, being responsive to community needs, addressing constraints of mainstream funding sources, and, to a lesser degree, supporting services considered to be evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

Earmarked taxes are a promising financing strategy to improve access to, and quality of, behavioral health services by supplementing mainstream state and federal financing.

Mental Health Agency Officials' Perceived Priorities for Youth Mental Health and Factors That Influence Priorities

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize the perceived priorities of state and county policy makers for youth mental health services and the factors that influence those priorities.

METHODS

Mental health agency officials (N=338; N=221 state officials, N=117 county officials) representing 49 states completed a Web-based survey in 2019-2020. On 5-point scales, respondents rated the extent to which 15 issues were priorities for their agency in providing youth mental health services and the extent to which nine factors influenced those priorities.

RESULTS

Suicide was identified as the highest priority (mean±SD rating=4.38±0.94), followed by adverse childhood experiences and childhood trauma and then increasing access to evidence-based treatments. Budget issues (mean=4.27±0.92) and state legislative priorities (mean=4.01±0.99) were perceived as having the greatest influence on setting priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide insights into youth mental health policy priorities and can be used to guide implementation and dissemination strategies for research and program development within state and county systems.

Using policy codesign to achieve multi-sector alignment in adolescent behavioral health: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Policymaking is quickly gaining focus in the field of implementation science as a potential opportunity for aligning cross-sector systems and introducing incentives to promote population health, including substance use disorders (SUD) and their prevention in adolescents. Policymakers are seen as holding the necessary levers for realigning service infrastructure to more rapidly and effectively address adolescent behavioral health across the continuum of need (prevention through crisis care, mental health, and SUD) and in multiple locations (schools, primary care, community settings). The difficulty of aligning policy intent, policy design, and successful policy implementation is a well-known challenge in the broader public policy and public administration literature that also affects local behavioral health policymaking. This study will examine a blended approach of coproduction and codesign (i.e., Policy Codesign), iteratively developed over multiple years to address problems in policy formation that often lead to poor implementation outcomes. The current study evaluates this scalable approach using reproducible measures to grow the knowledge base in this field of study.

METHODS

This is a single-arm, longitudinal, staggered implementation study to examine the acceptability and short-term impacts of Policy Codesign in resolving critical challenges in behavioral health policy formation. The aims are to (1) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and reach of Policy Codesign within two geographically distinct counties in Washington state, USA; (2) examine the impact of Policy Codesign on multisector policy development within these counties using social network analysis; and (3) assess the perceived replicability of Policy Codesign among leaders and other staff of policy-oriented state behavioral health intermediary organizations across the USA.

DISCUSSION

This study will assess the feasibility of a specific approach to collaborative policy development, Policy Codesign, in two diverse regions. Results will inform a subsequent multi-state study measuring the impact and effectiveness of this approach for achieving multi-sector and evidence informed policy development in adolescent SUD prevention and treatment.

Implementation Feasibility and Hidden Costs of Statewide Scaling of Evidence-Based Therapies for Children and Adolescents

OBJECTIVE

State mental health systems are retraining their workforces to deliver services supported by research. Knowledge about evidence-based therapies (EBTs) for child and adolescent disorders is robust, but the feasibility of their statewide scaling has not been examined. The authors reviewed implementation feasibility for 12 commonly used EBTs, defining feasibility for statewide scaling as an EBT having at least one study documenting acceptability, facilitators and barriers, or fidelity; at least one study with a racially and ethnically diverse sample; an entity for training, certification, or licensing; and fiscal data reflecting the costs of implementation.

METHODS

The authors reviewed materials for 12 EBTs being scaled in New York State and conducted a literature review with search terms relevant to their implementation. Costs and certification information were supplemented by discussions with treatment developers and implementers.

RESULTS

All 12 EBTs had been examined for implementation feasibility, but only three had been examined for statewide scaling. Eleven had been studied in populations reflecting racial-ethnic diversity, but few had sufficient power for subgroup analyses to demonstrate effectiveness with these samples. All had certifying or licensing entities. The per-clinician costs of implementation ranged from $500 to $3,500, with overall ongoing costs ranging from $100 to $6,000. A fiscal analysis of three EBTs revealed hidden costs ranging from $5,000 to $24,000 per clinician, potentially limiting sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence necessary for embedding EBTs in state systems has notable gaps that may hinder sustainability. Research-funding agencies should prioritize studies that focus on the practical aspects of scaling to assist states as they retrain their workforces.

A Tale of Two Taxes: Implementation of Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health Services in California and Washington State

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to characterize perceptions of the impacts, attributes, and support for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services and to compare perceptions of the taxes among professionals in California and Washington, two states differing in earmarked tax designs.

METHODS

Surveys were completed by 155 public agency and community organization professionals involved in tax implementation in California (N=87) and Washington State (N=68) during 2022-2023 (29% response rate). Respondents indicated their perceptions of the taxes' impacts, attributes, and support. Responses were summed as aggregate scores and were also analyzed as individual items. Bivariate analyses were used to compare responses of professionals in California versus Washington State.

RESULTS

Earmarked taxes were generally regarded positively. Of the respondents, >80% strongly agreed that the taxes increased funding for services and were helpful, and only 10% strongly agreed that the taxes decreased behavioral health funding from other sources. Substantially more respondents in California than in Washington State strongly agreed that taxes' reporting requirements were complicated (45% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and that the taxes increased unjustified scrutiny of services or systems (33% vs. 2%, p<0.001). However, more respondents in California than in Washington State also strongly agreed that the taxes increased public awareness about behavioral health (56% vs. 15%, p<0.001) and decreased behavioral health stigma (47% vs. 14%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of taxes earmarked for behavioral health services may vary by design features of the tax. Such features include stigma-reduction initiatives and tax spending and reporting requirements.

Acceptability and feasibility of policy implementation strategies for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services

Background

This study's aims are to: (1) Compare the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies that could be deployed to increase the reach of evidence-based practices (EBPs) with revenue from policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services, and (2) Illustrate how definitions of implementation strategies and measures of acceptability and feasibility can be used in policy-focused implementation science research.

Methods

Web-based surveys of public agency and community organization professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were completed in 2022-2023 (N = 211, response rate = 24.9%). Respondents rated the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies (dissemination, implementation process, integration, capacity-building, and scale-up). Aggregate acceptability and feasibility scores were calculated for each type of strategy (scoring range 4-20). Analyses of variance compared scores across strategies and between organizational actor types.

Findings

For acceptability, capacity-building strategies had the highest rating (M = 16.3, SD = 3.0), significantly higher than each of the four other strategies, p ≤ . 004), and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 15.6). For feasibility, dissemination strategies had the highest rating (M = 15.3, significantly higher than three of the other strategies, p ≤ .002) and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 14.4).

Conclusions

Capacity-building and dissemination strategies may be well-received and readily deployed by policy implementers to support EBPs implementation with revenue from taxes earmarked for behavioral health services. Adapting definitions of implementation strategies for policy-focused topics, and applying established measures of acceptability and feasibility to these strategies, demonstrates utility as an approach to advance research on policy-focused implementation strategies.

Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

BACKGROUND

Strategies for supporting evidence-informed health policy are a recognized but understudied area of policy dissemination and implementation science. Codesign describes a set of strategies potentially well suited to address the complexity presented by policy formation and implementation. We examine the health policy literature describing the use of codesign in initiatives intended to combine diverse sources of knowledge and evidence in policymaking.

METHODS

The search included PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in November 2022 and included papers published between 1996 and 2022. Terms included codesign, health, policy, and system terminology. Title and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and included if efforts informed policy or system-level decision-making. Extracted data followed scoping review guidelines for location, evaluation method, health focus, codesign definition, description, level of health system user input, sectors involved, and reported benefits and challenges.

RESULTS

From 550 titles, 23 citations describing 32 policy codesign studies were included from multiple continents (Australia/New Zealand, 32%; UK/Europe, 32%; South America, 14%; Africa, 9%; USA/Canada 23%). Document type was primarily case study (77%). The area of health focus was widely distributed. Policy type was more commonly little p policy (47%), followed by big p policy (25%), and service innovations that included policy-enabled funding (25%). Models and frameworks originated from formal design (e.g., human-centered or participatory design (44%), political science (38%), or health service research (16%). Reported outcomes included community mobilization (50%), policy feasibility (41%), improved multisector alignment (31%), and introduction of novel ideas and critical thinking (47%). Studies engaging policy users in full decision-making roles self-reported higher levels of community mobilization and community needs than other types of engagement.

DISCUSSION

Policy codesign is theoretically promising and is gaining interest among diverse health sectors for addressing the complexity of policy formation and implementation. The maturity of the science is just emerging. We observed trends in the association of codesign strategies and outcomes that suggests a research agenda in this area could provide practical insights for tailoring policy codesign to respond to local contextual factors including values, needs, and resources.

Who's "in the room where it happens"? A taxonomy and five-step methodology for identifying and characterizing policy actors

BACKGROUND

Engaging policy actors in research design and execution is critical to increasing the practical relevance and real-world impact of policy-focused dissemination and implementation science. Identifying and selecting which policy actors to engage, particularly actors involved in "Big P" public policies such as laws, is distinct from traditional engaged research methods. This current study aimed to develop a transparent, structured method for iteratively identifying policy actors involved in key policy decisions-such as adopting evidence-based interventions at systems-scale-and to guide implementation study sampling and engagement approaches. A flexible policy actor taxonomy was developed to supplement existing methods and help identify policy developers, disseminators, implementers, enforcers, and influencers.

METHODS

A five-step methodology for identifying policy actors to potentially engage in policy dissemination and implementation research was developed. Leveraging a recent federal policy as a case study-The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)-publicly available documentation (e.g., websites, reports) were searched, retrieved, and coded using content analysis to characterize the organizations and individual policy actors in the "room" during policy decisions.

RESULTS

The five steps are as follows: (1) clarify the policy implementation phase(s) of interest, (2) identify relevant proverbial or actual policymaking "rooms," (3) identify and characterize organizations in the room, (4) identify and characterize policy actors in the "room," and (5) quantify (e.g., count actors across groups), summarize, and compare "rooms" to develop or select engagement approaches aligned with the "room" and actors. The use and outcomes of each step are exemplified through the FFPSA case study.

CONCLUSIONS

The pragmatic and transparent policy actor identification steps presented here can guide researchers' methods for continuous sampling and successful policy actor engagement. Future work should explore the utility of the proposed methods for guiding selection and tailoring of engagement and implementation strategies (e.g., research-policy actor partnerships) to improve both "Big P" and "little p" (administrative guidelines, procedures) policymaking and implementation in global contexts.

A landscape assessment of the activities and capacities of evidence-to-policy intermediaries (EPI) in behavioral health

BACKGROUND

A significant gap exists between the production of research evidence and its use in behavioral health policymaking. Organizations providing consulting and support activities for improving policy represent a promising source for strengthening the infrastructure to address this gap. Understanding the characteristics and activities of these evidence-to-policy intermediary (EPI) organizations can inform the development of capacity-building activities, leading to strengthened evidence-to-policy infrastructure and more widespread evidence-based policymaking.

METHODS

Online surveys were sent to 51 organizations from English-speaking countries involved in evidence-to-policy activities in behavioral health. The survey was grounded in a rapid evidence review of the academic literature regarding strategies used to influence research use in policymaking. The review identified 17 strategies, which were classified into four activity categories. We administered the surveys via Qualtrics and calculated the descriptive statistics, scales, and internal consistency statistics using R.

RESULTS

A total of 31 individuals completed the surveys from 27 organizations (53% response rate) in four English-speaking countries. EPIs were evenly split between university (49%) and non-university (51%) settings. Nearly all EPIs conducted direct program support (mean = 4.19/5 [sd = 1.25]) and knowledge-building (4.03 [1.17]) activities. However, engagement with traditionally marginalized and non-traditional partners (2.84 [1.39]) and development of evidence reviews using formal critical appraisal methods (2.81 [1.70]) were uncommon. EPIs tend to be specialized, focusing on a group of highly related strategies rather than incorporating multiple evidence-to-policy strategies in their portfolios. Inter-item consistency was moderate to high, with scale α's ranging from 0.67 to 0.85. Ratings of respondents' willingness to pay for training in one of three evidence dissemination strategies revealed high interest in program and policy design.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that evidence-to-policy strategies are frequently used by existing EPIs; however, organizations tend to specialize rather than engage in a breadth of strategies. Furthermore, few organizations reported consistently engaging with non-traditional or community partners. Focusing on building capacity for a network of new and existing EPIs could be a promising strategy for growing the infrastructure needed for evidence-informed behavioral health policymaking.

A policy implementation study of earmarked taxes for mental health services: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Insufficient funding is frequently identified as a critical barrier to the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Thus, increasing access to funding is recognized as an implementation strategy. Policies that create earmarked taxes-defined as taxes for which revenue can only be spent on specific activities-are an increasingly common mental health financing strategy that could improve the reach of EBPs. This project's specific aims are to (1) identify all jurisdictions in the USA that have implemented earmarked taxes for mental health and catalogue information about tax design; (2) characterize experiences implementing earmarked taxes among local (e.g., county, city) mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials and assess their perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of different types of policy implementation strategies; and (3) develop a framework to guide effect earmarked tax designs, inform the selection of implementation strategies, and disseminate the framework to policy audiences.

METHODS

The project uses the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to inform data collection about the determinants and processes of tax implementation and Leeman's typology of implementation strategies to examine the acceptability and feasibility strategies which could support earmarked tax policy implementation. A legal mapping will be conducted to achieve aim 1. To achieve aim 2, a survey will be conducted of 300 local mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials involved with the implementation of earmarked taxes for mental health. The survey will be followed by approximately 50 interviews with these officials. To achieve aim 3, quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated through a systematic framework development and dissemination process.

DISCUSSION

This exploratory policy implementation process study will build the evidence base for outer-context implementation determinants and strategies by focusing on policies that earmarked taxes for mental health services.

Tailoring dissemination strategies to increase evidence-informed policymaking for opioid use disorder treatment: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Policy is a powerful tool for systematically altering healthcare access and quality, but the research to policy gap impedes translating evidence-based practices into public policy and limits widespread improvements in service and population health outcomes. The US opioid epidemic disproportionately impacts Medicaid members who rely on publicly funded benefits to access evidence-based treatment including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). A myriad of misaligned policies and evidence-use behaviors by policymakers across federal agencies, state Medicaid agencies, and managed care organizations limit coverage of and access to MOUD for Medicaid members. Dissemination strategies that improve policymakers' use of current evidence are critical to improving MOUD benefits and reducing health disparities. However, no research describes key determinants of Medicaid policymakers' evidence use behaviors or preferences, and few studies have examined data-driven approaches to developing dissemination strategies to enhance evidence-informed policymaking. This study aims to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors, then develop and test data-driven tailored dissemination strategies that promote MOUD coverage in benefit arrays.

METHODS

Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we will conduct a national survey of state Medicaid agency and managed care organization policymakers to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence how they seek, receive, and use research in their decision-making processes. We will use latent class methods to empirically identify subgroups of agencies with distinct evidence use behaviors. A 10-step dissemination strategy development and specification process will be used to tailor strategies to significant predictors identified for each latent class. Tailored dissemination strategies will be deployed to each class of policymakers and assessed for their acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for delivering evidence about MOUD benefit design.

DISCUSSION

This study will illuminate key determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors when designing benefits for MOUD. This study will produce a critically needed set of data-driven, tailored policy dissemination strategies. Study results will inform a subsequent multi-site trial measuring the effectiveness of tailored dissemination strategies on MOUD benefit design and implementation. Lessons from dissemination strategy development will inform future research about policymakers' evidence use preferences and offer a replicable process for tailoring dissemination strategies.

Where is "policy" in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example

BACKGROUND

Implementation science aims to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based interventions. However, implementation science has had too little focus on the role of health policy - and its inseparable politics, polity structures, and policymakers - in the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based healthcare. Policies can serve as determinants, implementation strategies, the evidence-based "thing" to be implemented, or another variable in the causal pathway to healthcare access, quality, and patient outcomes. Research describing the roles of policy in dissemination and implementation (D&I) efforts is needed to resolve persistent knowledge gaps about policymakers' evidence use, how evidence-based policies are implemented and sustained, and methods to de-implement policies that are ineffective or cause harm. Few D&I theories, models, or frameworks (TMF) explicitly guide researchers in conceptualizing where, how, and when policy should be empirically investigated. We conducted and reflected on the results of a scoping review to identify gaps of existing Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework-guided policy D&I studies. We argue that rather than creating new TMF, researchers should optimize existing TMF to examine policy's role in D&I. We describe six recommendations to help researchers optimize existing D&I TMF. Recommendations are applied to EPIS, as one example for advancing TMF for policy D&I.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Specify dimensions of a policy's function (policy goals, type, contexts, capital exchanged). (2) Specify dimensions of a policy's form (origin, structure, dynamism, outcomes). (3) Identify and define the nonlinear phases of policy D&I across outer and inner contexts. (4) Describe the temporal roles that stakeholders play in policy D&I over time. (5) Consider policy-relevant outer and inner context adaptations. (6) Identify and describe bridging factors necessary for policy D&I success.

CONCLUSION

Researchers should use TMF to meaningfully conceptualize policy's role in D&I efforts to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based policies or practices and de-implement ineffective and harmful policies. Applying these six recommendations to existing D&I TMF advances existing theoretical knowledge, especially EPIS application, rather than introducing new models. Using these recommendations will sensitize researchers to help them investigate the multifaceted roles policy can play within a causal pathway leading to D&I success.

Considering multiple governance levels in epidemiologic analysis of public policies

Epidemiology is increasingly asking questions about the use of policies to address structural inequities and intervene on health disparities and public health challenges. However, there has been limited explicit consideration of governance structures in the design of epidemiologic policy analysis. To advance empirical and theoretical inquiry in this space, we propose a model of governance analysis in which public health researchers consider at what level 1) decision-making authority for policy sits, 2) policy is implemented, 3) and accountability for policy effects appear. We follow with examples of how these considerations might improve the evaluation of the policy drivers of population health. Consideration and integration of multiple levels of governance, as well as interactions between levels, can help epidemiologists design studies including new opportunities for quasi-experimental designs and stronger counterfactuals, better quantify the policy drivers of inequities, and aid research evidence and policy development work in targeting multiple levels of governance, ultimately supporting evidence-based policy making.

State Policies that Impact the Design of Children's Mental Health Services: A Modified Delphi Study

To identify the state-level policies and policy domains that state policymakers and advocates perceive as most important for positively impacting the use of children's mental health services (CMHS). We used a modified Delphi technique (i.e., two rounds of questionnaires and an interview) during Spring 2021 to elicit perceptions among state mental health agency officials and advocates (n = 28) from twelve states on state policies that impact the use of CMHS. Participants rated a list of pre-specified policies on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 7 = extremely important) in the following policy domains: insurance coverage and limits, mental health services, school and social. Participants added nine policies to the initial list of 24 policies. The "school" policy domain was perceived as the most important, while the "social" policy domain was perceived as the least important after the first questionnaire and the second most important policy domain after the second questionnaire. The individual policies perceived as most important were school-based mental health services, state mental health parity, and Medicaid reimbursement rates. Key stakeholders in CMHS should leverage this group of policies to understand the current policy landscape in their state and to identify gaps in policy domains and potential policy opportunities to create a more comprehensive system to address children's mental health from a holistic, evidence-based policymaking perspective.

Inter-agency collaboration is associated with increased frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the self-report frequency of inter-agency collaboration about children's mental health issues is associated with the self-report frequency of using research evidence in children's mental health policy and program decision making in mental health agencies (MHAs).

DATA SOURCES

Primary data were collected through web-based surveys of state (N = 221) and county (N = 117) MHA officials.

DESIGN

The primary independent variable was a composite score quantifying the frequency of collaboration about children's mental health issues between officials in MHAs and six other state agencies. The dependent variables were composite scores quantifying the frequency of research use in children's mental health policy and program decision making in general and for specific purposes (i.e., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, imposed). Covariates were composite scores quantifying well-established determinants of research use (e.g., agency leadership, research use skills) in agency policy and program decision making.

DATA METHODS

Separate multiple linear regression models estimated associations between frequency of inter-agency collaboration and research use scores, adjusting for other determinants of research use, respondent state, and other covariates. Data from state and county officials were analyzed separately.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The frequency of inter-agency collaboration was positively and independently associated with the frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making among state (β = 0.22, p = 0.004) and county (β = 0.39, p < 0.0001) MHA officials. Inter-agency collaboration was also the only variable significantly associated with the frequency of research use for all four specific purposes among state MHA officials, and similar findings we observed among county MHA officials. The magnitudes of associations between inter-agency collaboration and frequency of research use were generally stronger than for more well-established determinants of research use in policy making.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies that promote collaboration between MHA officials and external agencies could increase the use of research evidence in children's mental health policy and program decision making in MHAs.

Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions

BACKGROUND

Academic institutions building capacity for implementation scholarship are also well positioned to build capacity in real world health and human service settings. How practitioners and policy makers are included and trained in implementation capacity-building initiatives, and their impact on building implementation practice capacity is unclear. This scoping review identified and examined features of interventions that build implementation practice capacity across researchers and practitioners or practitioners-in-training.

METHODS

Five bibliographic databases were searched. Eligible studies (a) described an implementation capacity building intervention with a connection to an academic institution, (b) targeted researchers and practitioners (including practitioners-in-training, students, or educators), and (c) reported intervention or participant outcomes. Articles that only described capacity building interventions without reporting outcomes were excluded. Consistent with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, key study characteristics were extracted (target participants, core components, and outcomes) and analyzed using open coding and numerical analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1349 studies identified, 64 met eligibility for full-text review, and 14 were included in the final analysis. Half of the studies described implementation capacity building interventions that targeted health or behavioral health researchers, practitioners, and practitioners-in-training together, and half targeted practitioners or practitioners-in-training only. The most common components included structured didactic activities offered in person or online, mentorship and expert consultation to support implementation, and practical application activities (e.g., field placements, case studies). Knowledge sharing activities and technical assistance were less common. All studies reported favorable outcomes related to knowledge attainment, increased ability to implement evidence, productivity, and satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Building implementation capacity among practitioners is critical for integrating insights from implementation science into the field and preventing the "secondary" implementation research-to-practice gap. This scoping review identified several promising implementation practice capacity building interventions that tend to build practitioner capacity via expert led activities which may be relevant for academic institutions seeking to build implementation practice capacity. To avoid widening the implementation research-to-practice gap, implementation capacity building interventions are needed that target policy makers, expand beyond multiple practice settings, and leverage university/community partnerships or on-site academic medical centers. Future studies will also be needed to test the impact on service quality and public health outcomes.

Translating Medicaid policy into practice: policy implementation strategies from three US states' experiences enhancing substance use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND

Despite the important upstream impact policy has on population health outcomes, few studies in implementation science in health have examined implementation processes and strategies used to translate state and federal policies into accessible services in the community. This study examines the policy implementation strategies and experiences of Medicaid programs in three US states that responded to a federal prompt to improve access to evidence-based practice (EBP) substance use disorder (SUD) treatment.

METHODS

Three US state Medicaid programs implementing American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Criteria-driven SUD services under Section 1115 waiver authority were used as cases. We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with Medicaid staff, providers and health systems partners in California, Virginia, and West Virginia. Interviews were triangulated with document review of state readiness and implementation plans. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework (EPIS) guided qualitative theme analysis. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change and Specify It criteria were used to create a taxonomy of policy implementation strategies used by policymakers to promote providers' uptake of statewide EBP SUD care continuums.

RESULTS

Four themes describe states' experiences and outcomes implementing a complex EBP SUD treatment policy directive: (1) Medicaid agencies adapted their inner/outer contexts to align with EBPs and adapted EBPs to fit their local context; (2) enhanced financial reimbursement arrangements were inadequate bridging factors to achieve statewide adoption of new SUD services; (3) despite trainings, service providers and managed care organizations demonstrated poor fidelity to the ASAM Criteria; and (4) successful policy adoption at the state level did not guarantee service providers' uptake of EBPs. States used 29 implementation strategies to implement EBP SUD care continuums. Implementation strategies were used in the Exploration (n=6), Preparation (n=10), Implementation (n=19), and Sustainment (n=6) phases, and primarily focused on developing stakeholder interrelationships, evaluative and iterative approaches, and financing.

CONCLUSIONS

This study enhances our understanding of statewide policy implementation outcomes in low-resource, public healthcare settings. Themes highlight the need for additional pre-implementation and sustainment focused implementation strategies. The taxonomy of detailed policy implementation strategies employed by policymakers across states should be tested in future policy implementation research.

Dissemination Science in School Mental Health: A Framework for Future Research

There has been an increase in school mental health research aimed at producing generalizable knowledge to address longstanding science-to-practice gaps to increase children's access to evidence-based mental health services. Successful dissemination and implementation are both important pieces to address science-to-practice gaps, but there is conceptual and semantic imprecision that creates confusion regarding where dissemination ends and implementation begins, as well as an imbalanced focus in research on implementation relative to dissemination. In this paper, we provide an enhanced operational definition of dissemination; offer a conceptual model that outlines elements of effective dissemination that can produce changes in awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and motivation across different stakeholder groups; and delineate guiding principles that can inform dissemination science and practice. The overarching goal of this paper is to stimulate future research that aims to advance dissemination science and practice in school mental health.