1
|
Brown GK, Wolk CB, Green KL, Nezir F, Mowery DL, Gallop R, Reilly ME, Stanley B, Mandell DS, Oquendo MA, Jager-Hyman S. Safety planning intervention and follow-up: A telehealth service model for suicidal individuals in emergency department settings: Study design and protocol. Contemp Clin Trials 2024; 140:107492. [PMID: 38484793 PMCID: PMC11071175 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2024.107492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2023] [Revised: 02/29/2024] [Accepted: 03/05/2024] [Indexed: 03/26/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory K Brown
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Courtney Benjamin Wolk
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kelly L Green
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Freya Nezir
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Danielle L Mowery
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, & Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Robert Gallop
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, & Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Mathematics, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, PA, USA
| | - Megan E Reilly
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Barbara Stanley
- Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA
| | - David S Mandell
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Maria A Oquendo
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Shari Jager-Hyman
- Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EMF, Ioannidis JPA, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2024; 10:57. [PMID: 38582840 PMCID: PMC10998328 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-024-01485-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Pfledderer
- Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
- Michael and Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | | | - David R Lubans
- College of Human and Social Futures, The University of Newcastle Australia, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
| | - Russell Jago
- Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK
| | - Anthony D Okely
- Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
| | | | - John P A Ioannidis
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - James F Thrasher
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Xiaoming Li
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| | - Michael W Beets
- Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pfledderer CD, von Klinggraeff L, Burkart S, da Silva Bandeira A, Lubans DR, Jago R, Okely AD, van Sluijs EM, Ioannidis JP, Thrasher JF, Li X, Beets MW. Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-3370077. [PMID: 38168263 PMCID: PMC10760234 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3370077/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sarah Burkart
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | | | | - Russ Jago
- University of Bristol Population Health Sciences
| | | | | | | | | | - Xiaoming Li
- University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
McCarthy AM, Fernandez Perez C, Beidas RS, Bekelman JE, Blumenthal D, Mack E, Bauer AM, Ehsan S, Conant EF, Wheeler BC, Guerra CE, Nunes LW, Gabriel P, Doucette A, Wileyto EP, Buttenheim AM, Asch DA, Rendle KA, Shelton RC, Fayanju OM, Ware S, Plag M, Hyland S, Gionta T, Shulman LN, Schnoll R. 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. Implement Sci 2023; 18:65. [PMID: 38001506 PMCID: PMC10668465 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01323-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Marie McCarthy
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
| | | | - Rinad S Beidas
- Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Justin E Bekelman
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Daniel Blumenthal
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research On Nicotine Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Elizabeth Mack
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Anna-Marika Bauer
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research On Nicotine Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Sarah Ehsan
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Emily F Conant
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | - Carmen E Guerra
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Linda W Nunes
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Peter Gabriel
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Abigail Doucette
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - E Paul Wileyto
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research On Nicotine Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Alison M Buttenheim
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Katharine A Rendle
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Rachel C Shelton
- Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Oluwadamilola M Fayanju
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Sue Ware
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research On Nicotine Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Martina Plag
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Steven Hyland
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Tracy Gionta
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Lawrence N Shulman
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Robert Schnoll
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research On Nicotine Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Becker-Haimes EM, Brady M, Jamison J, Jager-Hyman S, Reilly ME, Patel E, Brown GK, Mandell DS, Oquendo MA. An exposure-based implementation strategy to decrease clinician anxiety about implementing suicide prevention evidence-based practices: protocol for development and pilot testing (Project CALMER). Implement Sci Commun 2023; 4:148. [PMID: 38001478 PMCID: PMC10675939 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-023-00530-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2023] [Accepted: 11/12/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily M Becker-Haimes
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
- Hall Mercer Community Mental Health, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, USA.
| | - Megan Brady
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Jesslyn Jamison
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Shari Jager-Hyman
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Megan E Reilly
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Esha Patel
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Gregory K Brown
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - David S Mandell
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| | - Maria A Oquendo
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, 3 Rd floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Davis M, Siegel J, Becker-Haimes EM, Jager-Hyman S, Beidas RS, Young JF, Wislocki K, Futterer A, Mautone JA, Buttenheim AM, Mandell DS, Marx D. Identifying Common and Unique Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Evidence-Based Practices for Suicide Prevention across Primary Care and Specialty Mental Health Settings. Arch Suicide Res 2023; 27:192-214. [PMID: 34651544 PMCID: PMC9930207 DOI: 10.1080/13811118.2021.1982094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Molly Davis
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
- Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (PISCE@LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jennifer Siegel
- University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Emily M. Becker-Haimes
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
- Hall Mercer Community Mental Health, University of Pennsylvania Health System
| | - Shari Jager-Hyman
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Rinad S. Beidas
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
- Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (PISCE@LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Penn Medicine Nudge Unit, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jami F. Young
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and PolicyLab, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Katherine Wislocki
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Anne Futterer
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Jennifer A. Mautone
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and PolicyLab, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Alison M. Buttenheim
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Department of Family and Community Health, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - David S. Mandell
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Darby Marx
- Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Courtney Benjamin Wolk
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Khazanov GK, Forster SE, DePhilippis D, McKay JR. Increasing the Impact of Interventions Incentivizing Psychiatric Treatment Engagement: Challenges and Opportunities. Psychiatr Serv 2022; 73:580-583. [PMID: 34496628 PMCID: PMC9716479 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.202100100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriela K Khazanov
- Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 (VISN 4) Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC) (Khazanov) and Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (DePhilippis, McKay), Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Philadelphia; VISN 4 MIRECC, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh (Forster); Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (McKay)
| | - Sarah E Forster
- Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 (VISN 4) Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC) (Khazanov) and Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (DePhilippis, McKay), Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Philadelphia; VISN 4 MIRECC, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh (Forster); Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (McKay)
| | - Dominick DePhilippis
- Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 (VISN 4) Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC) (Khazanov) and Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (DePhilippis, McKay), Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Philadelphia; VISN 4 MIRECC, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh (Forster); Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (McKay)
| | - James R McKay
- Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 (VISN 4) Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC) (Khazanov) and Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education (DePhilippis, McKay), Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Philadelphia; VISN 4 MIRECC, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh (Forster); Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (McKay)
| |
Collapse
|