Learning Collaborative Archives - Implementation Science at UW

✪ Implementing evidence-based practices to improve primary care for high-risk patients: study protocol for the VA high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) type III effectiveness-implementation trial

Abstract:

Background

Patients with significant multimorbidity and other factors that make healthcare challenging to access and coordinate are at high risk for poor health outcomes. Although most (93%) of Veterans’ Health Administration (VHA) patients at high risk for hospitalization or death (“high-risk Veterans”) are primarily managed by primary care teams, few of these teams have implemented evidence-based practices (EBPs) known to improve outcomes for the high-risk patient population’s complex healthcare issues. Effective implementation strategies could increase adoption of these EBPs in primary care; however, the most effective implementation strategies to increase evidence-based care for high-risk patients are unknown.

The high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) will compare two variants of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) strategies to implement two distinct EBPs for high-risk Veterans: individual coaching (EBQI-IC; tailored training with individual implementation sites to meet site-specific needs) versus learning collaborative (EBQI-LC; implementation sites trained in groups to encourage collaboration among sites). One EBP, Comprehensive Assessment and Care Planning (CACP), guides teams in addressing patients’ cognitive, functional, and social needs through a comprehensive care plan. The other EBP, Medication Adherence Assessment (MAA), addresses common challenges to medication adherence using a patient-centered approach.

Methods

We will recruit and randomize 16 sites to either EBQI-IC or EBQI-LC to implement one of the EBPs, chosen by the site. Each site will have a site champion (front-line staff) who will participate in 18 months of EBQI facilitation.

Analysis

We will use a mixed-methods type 3 hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation trial to test EBQI-IC versus EBQI-LC versus usual care using a Concurrent Stepped Wedge design. We will use the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework to compare and evaluate Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and costs. We will then assess the maintenance/sustainment and spread of both EBPs in primary care after the 18-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be Reach, measured by the percentage of eligible high-risk patients who received the EBP.

Discussion

Our study will identify which implementation strategy is most effective overall, and under various contexts, accounting for unique barriers, facilitators, EBP characteristics, and adaptations. Ultimately this study will identify ways for primary care clinics and teams to choose implementation strategies that can improve care and outcomes for patients with complex healthcare needs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05050643. Registered September 9th, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050643

Protocol version

This protocol is Version 1.0 which was created on 6/3/2020.

Contributions to the literature

The first study to compare the effectiveness of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) conducted individually with one site or conducted with a group of sites.
Implementation of evidence-based practices to improve care for high-risk patients in primary care.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Supporting Psychosis Research, Implementation, and Training Through an Academic Intermediary–Purveyor Organization

✪ Strengthening integrated depression services within routine primary health care using the RE-AIM framework in South Africa

Authors:

Inge Petersen, Christopher G. Kemp, Deepa Rao, Bradley H. Wagenaar, Max Bachmann, Kenneth Sherr, Tasneem Kathree, Zamasomi Luvuno, André Van Rensburg, Sithabisile Gugulethu Gigaba, Londiwe Mthethwa, Merridy Grant, One Selohilwe, Nikiwe Hongo, Gillian Faris, Christy-Joy Ras, Lara Fairall, Sanah Bucibo, & Arvin Bhana

^{University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.}

✪ Open Access

Published: November 2023

Read the full text in the open access journal PLOS Global Public Health

Abstract:

Integration of mental health into routine primary health care (PHC) services in low-and middle-income countries is globally accepted to improve health outcomes of other conditions and narrow the mental health treatment gap. Yet implementation remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to identify implementation strategies that improve implementation outcomes of an evidence-based depression care collaborative implementation model integrated with routine PHC clinic services in South Africa. An iterative, quasi-experimental, observational implementation research design, incorporating the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, was applied to evaluate implementation outcomes of a strengthened package of implementation strategies (stage two) compared with an initial evaluation of the model (stage one). The first stage package was implemented and evaluated in 10 PHC clinics and the second stage strengthened package in 19 PHC clinics (inclusive of the initial 10 clinics) in one resource-scarce district in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Diagnosed service users were more likely to be referred for counselling treatment in the second stage compared with stage one (OR 23.15, SE = 18.03, z = 4.04, 95%CI [5.03–106.49], p < .001). Training in and use of a validated, mandated mental health screening tool, including on-site educational outreach and technical support visits, was an important promoter of nurse-level diagnosis rates (OR 3.75, 95% CI [1.19, 11.80], p = 0.02). Nurses who perceived the integrated care model as acceptable were also more likely to successfully diagnose patients (OR 2.57, 95% CI [1.03–6.40], p = 0.043). Consistent availability of a clinic counsellor was associated with a greater probability of referral (OR 5.9, 95%CI [1.29–27.75], p = 0.022). Treatment uptake among referred service users remained a concern across both stages, with inconsistent co-located counselling services associated with poor uptake. The importance of implementation research for strengthening implementation strategies along the cascade of care for integrating depression care within routine PHC services is highlighted.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice

Abstract:

Purpose

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members.

Methods

We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation.

Results

Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN’s success—in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci—is attributable to: (1) its people–the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change.

Conclusion

CPCRN’s history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Twenty years of capacity building across the cancer prevention and control research network

Abstract:

Purpose

To improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members’ capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN’s experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners’ capacity-building initiatives.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes.

Results

Three themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond.

Conclusion

CPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Identifying research practices toward achieving health equity principles within the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network

Abstract:

Purpose

Although there is national recognition for health equity-oriented research, there is limited guidance for researchers to engage partnerships that promote health equity in cancer research. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network’s (CPCRN) Health Equity Work Group developed a toolkit to guide researchers in equitable collaborations.

Methods

The CPCRN’s Health Equity Work Group collectively outlined health and racial equity principles guiding research collaborations with partners that include communities, community-based organizations, implementing partners in the clinical setting including providers and health care organizations, and policy makers. Using a network-wide survey to crowdsource information around ongoing practices, we leveraged and integrated the network’s experience and collaborations.

Results

Data from the survey formed the preliminary basis for the toolkit, with a focus on sharing fiscal resources with partners, training and capacity building, collaborative decision-making, community-driven research agenda setting, and sustainability. The final toolkit provides reflection considerations for researchers and collated exemplary resources, supported by the contemporary research.

Conclusions

The toolkit provides a guide to researchers at all experience levels wanting to engage in equitable research collaborations. Future efforts are underway to evaluate whether and how researchers within and outside CPCRN are able to incorporate these principles in research collaborations.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control

Abstract:

Background

In 2019–2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in ‘real-world’ settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs.

Methods

In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites.

Results

Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods.

Conclusions

The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control

Abstract:

Background

The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute’s Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on ‘health equity and context’ to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions.

Discussion

In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity.

Summary

To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.

Contributions to the literature

This paper presents a narrative review and synthesis of the conceptual and empirical literature at the intersection of implementation science and health equity research.
We highlight opportunities identified at the health equity and context working group at the Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science to make a focus on health equity in IS foundational and explicit.
Informed by the narrative review and identified opportunities by the action group, we offer recommendations that reflect the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning and synergy between the fields of implementation science and health equity research.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

✪ Pilot to policy: statewide dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatment for traumatized youth

Abstract:

Background

A model for statewide dissemination of evidence-based treatment (EBT) for traumatized youth was piloted and taken to scale across North Carolina (NC). This article describes the implementation platform developed, piloted, and evaluated by the NC Child Treatment Program to train agency providers in Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy using the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress Learning Collaborative (LC) Model on Adoption & Implementation of EBTs. This type of LC incorporates adult learning principles to enhance clinical skills development as part of training and many key implementation science strategies while working with agencies and clinicians to implement and sustain the new practice.

Methods

Clinicians (n = 124) from northeastern NC were enrolled in one of two TF-CBT LCs that lasted 12 months each. During the LC clinicians were expected to take at least two clients through TF-CBT treatment with fidelity and outcomes monitoring by trainers who offered consultation by phone and during trainings. Participating clinicians initiated treatment with 281 clients. The relationship of clinician and client characteristics to treatment fidelity and outcomes was examined using hierarchical linear regression.

Results

One hundred eleven clinicians completed general training on trauma assessment batteries and TF-CBT. Sixty-five clinicians met all mastery and fidelity requirements to meet roster criteria. One hundred fifty-six (55%) clients had fidelity-monitored assessment and TF-CBT. Child externalizing, internalizing, and post-traumatic stress symptoms, as well as parent distress levels, decreased significantly with treatment fidelity moderating child PTSD outcomes. Since this pilot, 11 additional cohorts of TF-CBT providers have been trained to these roster criteria.

Conclusion

Scaling up or outcomes-oriented implementation appears best accomplished when training incorporates: 1) practice-based learning, 2) fidelity coaching, 3) clinical assessment and outcomes-oriented treatment, 4) organizational skill-building to address barriers for agencies, and 5) linking clients to trained clinicians via an online provider roster. Demonstrating clinician performance and client outcomes in this pilot and subsequent cohorts led to legislative support for dissemination of a service array of EBTs by the NC Child Treatment Program.

^{**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**}

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Analysis

Discussion

Trial registration

Protocol version

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text open access in the journal Psychological Services

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal PLOS Global Public Health

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Cancer Causes and Control

Abstract:

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Cancer Causes and Control

Abstract:

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Cancer Causes and Control

Abstract:

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Discussion

Summary

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the journal BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text open access in the subscription access American Journal of Preventive Medicine