Emily C. Williams, Madeline C. Frost, Olivia V. Fletcher, Carol E. Achtmeyer, Jessica A. Chen, Rachel L. Bachrach, E. Jennifer Edelman, Bryan J. Weiner, George N. Ioannou, and Judith I. Tsui
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2026
Sara J Becker, James H Ford II, Joseph E Glass, Heather J Gotham, Hannah K Knudsen, Andrew Quanbeck, Mat Roosa & Emily C Williams
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: October 2025
With heavy hearts, we are writing to celebrate the scientific contributions of our colleague and friend, Bryan R. Garner, PhD, who passed away incomprehensibly at the age of 49 on June 20, 2025. Bryan was a professor at The Ohio State University, where he served as Director of Dissemination & Implementation Science in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Director of Dissemination & Implementation Research for the Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking (CATALYST). Bryan formed enduring collaborations and friendships across the institutions where he worked and trained. He maintained career-long relationships with colleagues from Texas Christian University, where he earned his PhD in Experimental Psychology (1–3), and from Chestnut Health Systems (4–7) and RTI International (8–10), where he built and expanded his research program.
Elizabeth J Austin, Jessica Chen, Lori Ferro, Andrew J Saxon, John C Fortney, Geoffrey M Curran, Anna D Ratzliff, & Emily C Williams
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2024
There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites.
To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with key staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process. Qualitative themes were iteratively reviewed by the study team.
Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites’ most precious resource—staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment.
Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.
There is a growing interest in research that reflects community settings. Yet too often, research is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. To better understand their perspectives, we conducted exit interviews (n = 5) with staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Analysis identified three themes: (1) research threatens sites’ most precious resource—staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research, and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Community sites face many barriers to participating in implementation research trials. Future trials should consider ways to disrupt traditional approaches and increase the equitable inclusion of community settings in implementation research.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Elena M. Soyer, Madeline C. Frost, Olivia V. Fletcher, George N. Ioannou, Judith I. Tsui, E. Jennifer Edelman, Bryan J. Weiner, Rachel L. Bachrach, Jessica A. Chen, & Emily C. Williams
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: January 2024
Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is particularly dangerous for people with chronic liver disease. Liver clinics may be an important setting in which to provide effective alcohol-related care by integrating evidence-based strategies, such as brief intervention and medications for alcohol use disorder. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinical stakeholders and patients at liver clinics in four Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers to understand barriers and facilitators of integrating alcohol-related care and to support tailoring of a practice facilitation implementation intervention.
Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the CFIR.
We interviewed 46 clinical stakeholders and 41 patient participants and analyzed findings based on the CFIR. Clinical stakeholders described barriers and facilitators that ranged from operations/clinic resource-based (e.g., time and capacity, desire for additional provider types, referral processes) to individual perspective and preference-based (e.g., supportiveness of leadership, individual experiences/beliefs). Patient participants shared barriers and facilitators that ranged from relationship-based (e.g., trusting the provider and feeling judged) to resource and education-based (e.g., connection to a range of treatment options, education about impact of alcohol). Many barriers and facilitators to integrating alcohol-related care in liver clinics were similar to those identified in other clinical settings (e.g., time, resources, role clarity, stigmatizing beliefs). However, some barriers (e.g., fellow-led care and lack of integration of liver clinics with addictions specialists) and facilitators (e.g., presence of quality improvement staff in clinics and integrated pharmacists and behavioral health specialists) were more unique to liver clinics.
These findings support the possibility of integrating alcohol-related care into liver clinics but highlight the importance of tailoring efforts to account for variation in provider beliefs and experiences and clinic resources. The barriers and facilitators identified in these interviews were used to tailor a practice facilitation implementation intervention in each clinic setting.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
E. Jennifer Edelman, Oscar F. Rojas-Perez, Charla Nich, Joanne Corvino, Tami Frankforter, Derrick Gordon, Ayana Jordan, Manuel Paris, Jr, Melissa B. Weimer, Brian T. Yates, Emily C. Williams & Brian D. Kiluk
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: September 2023
Alcohol use disorder (AUD) commonly causes hospitalization, particularly for individuals disproportionately impacted by structural racism and other forms of marginalization. The optimal approach for engaging hospitalized patients with AUD in treatment post-hospital discharge is unknown. We describe the rationale, aims, and protocol for Project ENHANCE (ENhancing Hospital-initiated Alcohol TreatmeNt to InCrease Engagement), a clinical trial testing increasingly intensive approaches using a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach.
We are randomizing English and/or Spanish-speaking individuals with untreated AUD (n = 450) from a large, urban, academic hospital in New Haven, CT to: (1) Brief Negotiation Interview (with referral and telephone booster) alone (BNI), (2) BNI plus facilitated initiation of medications for alcohol use disorder (BNI + MAUD), or (3) BNI + MAUD + initiation of computer-based training for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT4CBT, BNI + MAUD + CBT4CBT). Interventions are delivered by Health Promotion Advocates. The primary outcome is AUD treatment engagement 34 days post-hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include AUD treatment engagement 90 days post-discharge and changes in self-reported alcohol use and phosphatidylethanol. Exploratory outcomes include health care utilization. We will explore whether the effectiveness of the interventions on AUD treatment engagement and alcohol use outcomes differ across and within racialized and ethnic groups, consistent with disproportionate impacts of AUD. Lastly, we will conduct an implementation-focused process evaluation, including individual-level collection and statistical comparisons between the three conditions of costs to providers and to patients, cost-effectiveness indices (effectiveness/cost ratios), and cost–benefit indices (benefit/cost ratios, net benefit [benefits minus costs). Graphs of individual- and group-level effectiveness x cost, and benefits x costs, will portray relationships between costs and effectiveness and between costs and benefits for the three conditions, in a manner that community representatives also should be able to understand and use.
Project ENHANCE is expected to generate novel findings to inform future hospital-based efforts to promote AUD treatment engagement among diverse patient populations, including those most impacted by AUD.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Eric J. Hawkins, Anissa N. Danner, Carol A. Malte, Brittany E. Blanchard, Emily C. Williams, Hildi J. Hagedorn, Adam J. Gordon, Karen Drexler, Jennifer L. Burden, Jennifer Knoeppel, Aline Lott, George G. Sayre, Amanda M. Midboe, & Andrew J. Saxon
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: September 2021
Improving access to medication treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) is a national priority, yet common modifiable barriers (e.g., limited provider knowledge, negative beliefs about MOUD) often challenge implementation of MOUD delivery. To address these barriers, the VA launched a multifaceted implementation intervention focused on planning and educational strategies to increase MOUD delivery in 18 medical facilities. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if a multifaceted intervention approach to increase MOUD delivery changed providers’ perceptions about MOUD over the first year of implementation.
Cross-disciplinary teams of clinic providers and leadership from primary care, pain, and mental health clinics at 18 VA medical facilities received invitations to complete an anonymous, electronic survey prior to intervention launch (baseline) and at 12- month follow-up. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, and changes over time were compared using regression models adjusted for gender and prescriber status, and clustered on facility. Responses to open-ended questions were thematically analyzed using a template analysis approach.
Survey response rates at baseline and follow-up were 57.1% (56/98) and 50.4% (61/121), respectively. At both time points, most respondents agreed that MOUD delivery is important (94.7 vs. 86.9%), lifesaving (92.8 vs. 88.5%) and evidence-based (85.2 vs. 89.5%). Over one-third (37.5%) viewed MOUD delivery as time-consuming, and only 53.7% affirmed that clinic providers wanted to prescribe MOUD at baseline; similar responses were seen at follow-up (34.5 and 52.4%, respectively). Respondents rated their knowledge about OUD, comfort discussing opioid use with patients, job satisfaction, ability to help patients with OUD, and support from colleagues favorably at both time points. Respondents’ ratings of MOUD delivery filling a gap in care were high but declined significantly from baseline to follow-up (85.7 vs. 73.7%, p < 0.04). Open-ended responses identified implementation barriers including lack of support to diagnose and treat OUD and lack of time.
Although perceptions about MOUD generally were positive, targeted education and planning strategies did not improve providers’ and clinical leaders’ perceptions of MOUD over time. Strategies that improve leaders’ prioritization and support of MOUD and address time constraints related to delivering MOUD may increase access to MOUD in non-substance use treatment clinics.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Jessica A. Chen, Theresa E. Matson, Keren Lehavot, Patrick J. Raue, Jessica P. Young, Molly C. Silvestrini, John C. Fortney, & Emily C. Williams
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2021
Madeline C. Frost, George N. Ioannou, Judith I. Tsui, E. Jennifer Edelman, Bryan J. Weiner, Olivia V. Fletcher & Emily C. Williams
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: July 2020
Alcohol-related care, including screening, brief intervention, and provision of/referral to medication or behavioral treatments for alcohol use disorder, could be delivered in liver clinics to better reach patients with chronic liver conditions. However, the provision of alcohol-related care in liver clinics is currently suboptimal. Practice facilitation is an evidence-based implementation strategy that may address barriers, harness facilitators, and optimize the implementation of alcohol-related care in liver clinic settings using a clinic-centered approach. We report the protocol of a study to test a practice facilitation intervention to implement alcohol-related care in four Veterans Health Administration liver clinics.
This study will employ a Hybrid Type 3 effectiveness-implementation design, in which implementation outcomes are considered primary and clinical outcomes secondary. Intervention and evaluation design were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Qualitative data collected from clinical stakeholders and patients were used to tailor the intervention. The intervention involves a 6-month period of external practice facilitation, including regular meetings to identify clinic goals, challenges, and solutions; engagement of clinic champions; provision of training and development of educational materials for clinic staff and patients; and performance monitoring and feedback. Ongoing formative evaluation involves the collection of quantitative facilitator tracking data and qualitative data from meeting notes and patient interviews to describe intervention acceptability, feasibility, and adoption, and adjust implementation as needed. In the summative evaluation, implementation outcomes (clinic rates of screening, brief intervention, and treatment referral/receipt) and clinical outcomes (unhealthy alcohol use, liver health) will be assessed among patients in participating clinics using secondary electronic health record data and interrupted time series analysis.
This will be the first study to our knowledge to test practice facilitation to implement alcohol-related care in liver clinic settings. Results from formative and summative evaluation will inform a framework for the successful implementation of effective alcohol-related care through practice facilitation in liver clinics, which may ultimately lead to better health outcomes for patients with chronic liver disease.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Joseph E. Glass, Jennifer F. Bobb, Amy K. Lee, Julie E. Richards, Gwen T. Lapham, Evette Ludman, Carol Achtmeyer, Ryan M. Caldeiro, Rebecca Parrish, Emily C. Williams, Paula Lozano and Katharine A. Bradley
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2018
Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science
Experts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC) to improve prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. However, few healthcare systems offer such integrated care. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) partnered to design a high-quality program of evidence-based care for unhealthy alcohol use: the Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC) program. SPARC implements systems of clinical care designed to increase both prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. This clinical care for unhealthy alcohol use was implemented using three strategies: electronic health record (EHR) decision support, performance monitoring and feedback, and front-line support from external practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care (“SPARC implementation intervention” hereafter).
The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the SPARC trial, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge implementation trial to evaluate whether the SPARC implementation intervention increased alcohol screening and brief alcohol counseling (so-called brief interventions), and diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in 22 KPWA PC clinics.
The SPARC trial sample includes all adult patients who had a visit to any of the 22 primary care sites in the trial during the study period (January 1, 2015–July 31, 2018). The 22 sites were randomized to implement the SPARC program on different dates (in seven waves, approximately every 4 months). Primary outcomes are the proportion of patients with PC visits who (1) screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use and have documented brief interventions and (2) have a newly recognized AUD and subsequently initiate and engage in alcohol-related care. Main analyses compare the rates of these primary outcomes in the pre- and post-implementation periods, following recommended approaches for analyzing stepped-wedge trials. Qualitative analyses assess barriers and facilitators to implementation and required adaptations of implementation strategies.
The SPARC trial is the first study to our knowledge to use an experimental design to test whether practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care, along with EHR clinical decision support and performance monitoring and feedback to sites, increase both preventive care—alcohol screening and brief intervention—as well as diagnosis and treatment of AUDs.
The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT02675777. Registered February 5, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675777.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**