Implementing nudges for suicide prevention in real-world environments: project INSPIRE study protocol

Safety planning intervention and follow-up: A telehealth service model for suicidal individuals in emergency department settings: Study design and protocol

BACKGROUND

The Safety Planning Intervention with follow-up services (SPI+) is a promising suicide prevention intervention, yet many Emergency Departments (EDs) lack the resources for adequate implementation. Comprehensive strategies addressing structural and organizational barriers are needed to optimize SPI+ implementation and scale-up. This protocol describes a test of one strategy in which ED staff connect at-risk patients to expert clinicians from a Suicide Prevention Consultation Center (SPCC) via telehealth.

METHOD

This stepped wedge, cluster-randomized trial compares the effectiveness, implementation, cost, and cost offsets of SPI+ delivered by SPCC clinicians versus ED-based clinicians (enhanced usual care; EUC). Eight EDs will start with EUC and cross over to the SPCC phase. Blocks of two EDs will be randomly assigned to start dates 3 months apart. Approximately 13,320 adults discharged following a suicide-related ED visit will be included; EUC and SPCC samples will comprise patients from before and after SPCC crossover, respectively. Effectiveness data sources are electronic health records, administrative claims, and the National Death Index. Primary effectiveness outcomes are presence of suicidal behavior and number/type of mental healthcare visits and secondary outcomes include number/type of suicide-related acute services 6-months post-discharge. We will use the same data sources to assess cost offsets to gauge SPCC scalability and sustainability. We will examine preliminary implementation outcomes (reach, adoption, fidelity, acceptability, and feasibility) through patient, clinician, and health-system leader interviews and surveys.

CONCLUSION

If the SPCC demonstrates clinical effectiveness and health system cost reduction, it may be a scalable model for evidence-based suicide prevention in the ED.

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts

BACKGROUND

Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI.

METHODS

Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

An exposure-based implementation strategy to decrease clinician anxiety about implementing suicide prevention evidence-based practices: protocol for development and pilot testing (Project CALMER)

BACKGROUND

Clinicians often report that their own anxiety and low self-efficacy inhibit their use of evidence-based suicide prevention practices, including gold-standard screening and brief interventions. Exposure therapy to reduce clinician maladaptive anxiety and bolster self-efficacy use is a compelling but untested approach to improving the implementation of suicide prevention evidence-based practices (EBPs). This project brings together an interdisciplinary team to leverage decades of research on behavior change from exposure theory to design and pilot test an exposure-based implementation strategy (EBIS) to target clinician anxiety to improve suicide prevention EBP implementation.

METHODS

We will develop, iteratively refine, and pilot test an EBIS paired with implementation as usual (IAU; didactic training and consultation) in preparation for a larger study of the effect of this strategy on reducing clinician anxiety, improving self-efficacy, and increasing use of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and the Safety Planning Intervention in outpatient mental health settings. Aim 1 of this study is to use participatory design methods to develop and refine the EBIS in collaboration with a stakeholder advisory board. Aim 2 is to iteratively refine the EBIS with up to 15 clinicians in a pilot field test using rapid cycle prototyping. Aim 3 is to test the refined EBIS in a pilot implementation trial. Forty community mental health clinicians will be randomized 1:1 to receive either IAU or IAU + EBIS for 12 weeks. Our primary outcomes are EBIS acceptability and feasibility, measured through questionnaires, interviews, and recruitment and retention statistics. Secondary outcomes are the engagement of target implementation mechanisms (clinician anxiety and self-efficacy related to implementation) and preliminary effectiveness of EBIS on implementation outcomes (adoption and fidelity) assessed via mixed methods (questionnaires, chart-stimulated recall, observer-coded role plays, and interviews).

DISCUSSION

Outcomes from this study will yield insight into the feasibility and utility of directly targeting clinician anxiety and self-efficacy as mechanistic processes informing the implementation of suicide prevention EBPs. Results will inform a fully powered hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial to test EBIS' effect on implementation and patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT05172609 . Registered on 12/29/2021.

Identifying Common and Unique Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Evidence-Based Practices for Suicide Prevention across Primary Care and Specialty Mental Health Settings

OBJECTIVE

We identified common and unique barriers and facilitators of evidence-based suicide prevention practices across primary care practices with integrated behavioral health services and specialty mental health settings to identify generalizable strategies for enhancing future implementation efforts.

METHOD

Twenty-six clinicians and practice leaders from behavioral health (n = 2 programs) and primary care (n = 4 clinics) settings participated. Participation included a semi-structured qualitative interview on barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based suicide prevention practices. Within that interview, clinicians participated in a chart-stimulated recall exercise to gather additional information about decision making regarding suicide screening. Interview guides and qualitative coding were informed by leading frameworks in implementation science and behavioral science, and an integrated approach to interpreting qualitative results was used.

RESULTS

There were a number of similar themes associated with implementation of suicide prevention practices across settings and clinician types, such as the benefits of inter-professional collaboration and uncertainties about managing suicidality once risk was disclosed. Clinicians also highlighted barriers unique to their settings. For primary care settings, time constraints and competing demands were consistently described as barriers. For specialty mental health settings, difficulties coordinating care with schools and other providers in the community made implementation of suicide prevention practices challenging.

CONCLUSION

Findings can inform the development and testing of implementation strategies that are generalizable across primary care and specialty mental health settings, as well as those tailored for unique site needs, to enhance use of evidence-based suicide prevention practices in settings where individuals at risk for suicide are especially likely to present.HIGHLIGHTSWe examined barriers and facilitators to suicide prevention across health settings.Common and unique barriers and facilitators across health-care settings emerged.Findings can enhance suicide prevention implementation across health-care settings.

Increasing the Impact of Interventions Incentivizing Psychiatric Treatment Engagement: Challenges and Opportunities

Individuals with psychiatric disorders often struggle to initiate and engage in treatment. Financial incentives improve treatment engagement, including treatment attendance, medication adherence, and abstinence from substance use. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently made the first large-scale, successful effort to implement incentive-based interventions in substance use disorder treatment. Health care systems, including the VA, can increase the impact of these interventions by extending them to target a range of psychiatric disorders, adapting them for specific clinical contexts, using insights from behavioral economics, and partnering with corporations to fund incentives and implement interventions.