Sean A. Munson Archives - Implementation Science at UW

✪ Rigorous projects and grants integrating human-centered design and implementation science: 8 tips for success

Abstract:

Background

Researchers and funders increasingly see potential for integrating human-centered design (HCD) and implementation science (IS) approaches to enhance the design and uptake of health interventions and implementation strategies. These approaches offer complementary strengths. HCD prioritizes developing compelling, intuitive, and adoptable innovations grounded in user and contextual needs; IS focuses on ensuring evidence-based practices reach and work for their intended populations. Integrating HCD and IS creates challenges that existing IS proposal writing guidelines do not address. HCD’s inherent uncertainty–since final designs are developed through iteration rather than pre-determined–can unsettle researchers and funders accustomed to more defined endpoints. Variation in how HCD is understood adds further difficulty when collaborating across disciplines or communicating with funders. There are currently no published recommendations to help researchers design strong studies integrating HCD and IS and communicate them effectively to funders.

Discussion

We present tips to support both rigorous study design and effective proposal writing that integrate HCD and IS. This draws from our experiences leading, supporting, and reviewing both funded and unfunded projects. Our considerations are informed primarily by experiences with teams in the United States in the mental health and behavioral health domains; however, we have found our findings also apply to projects globally and in other health sectors. Our intent is that this guide will advance good research that leverages both approaches and is viable for funding. We also hope that the tips will support funders in developing solicitations and evaluating proposals.

Conclusion

There is untapped potential for innovative health research integrating HCD and IS, but realizing it requires both rigorous study design and an ability to attract funding. We offer practice guidance to help researchers and funders develop quality projects and proposals, and we encourage others to build on these recommendations.

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

✪ Harnessing Human-Centered Design for Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions and Implementation Strategies in Community Settings: Protocol for Redesign to Improve Usability, Engagement, and Appropriateness

Authors:

Aaron R Lyon, Sean A Munson, Michael D Pullmann, Brittany Mosser, Tricia Aung , John Fortney, Alex Dopp, Katie P Osterhage, Helen G Haile, Kathryn E Bruzios, Brittany E Blanchard, Ryan Allred, Macey R Fuller, Patrick J Raue, Ian Bennett, Jill Locke, Karen Bearss, Denise Walker, Elizabeth Connors, Eric J Bruns, Jenna Van Draanen, Doyanne Darnell, Patricia A Areán

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

✪ Open Access

Published: January 2025

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:

Background

Although substantial progress has been made in establishing evidence-based psychosocial clinical interventions and implementation strategies for mental health, translating research into practice—particularly in more accessible, community settings—has been slow.

Objective

This protocol outlines the renewal of the National Institute of Mental Health–funded University of Washington Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center, which draws from human-centered design (HCD) and implementation science to improve clinical interventions and implementation strategies. The Center’s second round of funding (2023-2028) focuses on using the Discover, Design and Build, and Test (DDBT) framework to address 3 priority clinical intervention and implementation strategy mechanisms (ie, usability, engagement, and appropriateness), which we identified as challenges to implementation and scalability during the first iteration of the center. Local redesign teams work collaboratively and share decision-making to carry out DDBT.

Methods

All 4 core studies received institutional review board approval by June 2024, and each pilot project will pursue institutional review board approval when awarded. We will provide research infrastructure to 1 large effectiveness study and 3 exploratory pilot studies as part of the center grant. At least 4 additional small pilot studies will be solicited and funded by the center. All studies will explore the use of DDBT for clinical interventions and implementation strategies to identify modification targets to improve usability, engagement, and appropriateness in accessible nonspecialty settings (Discover phase); develop redesign solutions with local teams to address modification targets (Design and Build phase); and determine if redesign improves usability, engagement, and appropriateness (Test phase), as well as implementation outcomes. Center staff will collaborate with local redesign teams to develop and test clinical interventions and implementation strategies for community settings. We will collaborate with teams to use methods and centerwide measures that facilitate cross-project analysis of the effects of DDBT-driven redesign on outcomes of interest.

Results

As of January 2025, three of the 4 core studies are underway. We will generate additional evidence on the robustness of DDBT and whether combining HCD and implementation science is an asset for improving clinical interventions and implementation strategies.

Conclusions

During the first round of the center, we established that DDBT is a useful approach to systematically identify and address chronic challenges of implementing clinical interventions and implementation strategies. In this subsequent grant, we expect to increase evidence of DDBT’s impact on clinical interventions and implementation strategies by expanding a list of common challenges that could benefit from modification, a list of exemplary solutions to address these challenges, and guidance on using the DDBT framework. These resources will contribute to broader discourse on how to enhance implementation of clinical interventions and implementation strategies that integrate HCD and implementation science.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/65446

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

Bridging HCI and Implementation Science for Innovation Adoption and Public Health Impact

✪ The Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS): a pragmatic method for assessing implementation strategy usability

Abstract:

Background

Implementation strategies have flourished in an effort to increase integration of research evidence into clinical practice. Most strategies are complex, socially mediated processes. Many are complicated, expensive, and ultimately impractical to deliver in real-world settings. The field lacks methods to assess the extent to which strategies are usable and aligned with the needs and constraints of the individuals and contexts who will deliver or receive them. Drawn from the field of human-centered design, cognitive walkthroughs are an efficient assessment method with potential to identify aspects of strategies that may inhibit their usability and, ultimately, effectiveness. This article presents a novel walkthrough methodology for evaluating strategy usability as well as an example application to a post-training consultation strategy to support school mental health clinicians to adopt measurement-based care.

Method

The Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS) is a pragmatic, mixed-methods approach for evaluating complex, socially mediated implementation strategies. CWIS includes six steps: (1) determine preconditions; (2) hierarchical task analysis; (3) task prioritization; (4) convert tasks to scenarios; (5) pragmatic group testing; and (6) usability issue identification, classification, and prioritization. A facilitator conducted two group testing sessions with clinician users (N = 10), guiding participants through 6 scenarios and 11 associated subtasks. Clinicians reported their anticipated likelihood of completing each subtask and provided qualitative justifications during group discussion. Following the walkthrough sessions, users completed an adapted quantitative assessment of strategy usability.

Results

Average anticipated success ratings indicated substantial variability across participants and subtasks. Usability ratings (scale 0–100) of the consultation protocol averaged 71.3 (SD = 10.6). Twenty-one usability problems were identified via qualitative content analysis with consensus coding, and classified by severity and problem type. High-severity problems included potential misalignment between consultation and clinical service timelines as well as digressions during consultation processes.

Conclusions

CWIS quantitative usability ratings indicated that the consultation protocol was at the low end of the “acceptable” range (based on norms from the unadapted scale). Collectively, the 21 resulting usability issues explained the quantitative usability data and provided specific direction for usability enhancements. The current study provides preliminary evidence for the utility of CWIS to assess strategy usability and generate a blueprint for redesign.

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

✪ Assessing the usability of complex psychosocial interventions: The Intervention Usability Scale

Abstract:

Background

Usability—the extent to which an intervention can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction—may be a key determinant of implementation success. However, few instruments have been developed to measure the design quality of complex health interventions (i.e., those with several interacting components). This study evaluated the structural validity of the Intervention Usability Scale (IUS), an adapted version of the well-established System Usability Scale (SUS) for digital technologies, to measure the usability of a leading complex psychosocial intervention, Motivational Interviewing (MI), for behavioral health service delivery in primary care. Prior SUS studies have found both one- and two-factor solutions, both of which were examined in this study of the IUS.

Method

A survey administered to 136 medical professionals from 11 primary-care sites collected demographic information and IUS ratings for MI, the evidence-based psychosocial intervention that primary-care providers reported using most often for behavioral health service delivery. Factor analyses replicated procedures used in prior research on the SUS.

Results

Analyses indicated that a two-factor solution (with “usable” and “learnable” subscales) best fit the data, accounting for 54.1% of the variance. Inter-item reliabilities for the total score, usable subscale, and learnable subscale were α = .83, α = .84, and α = .67, respectively.

Conclusion

This study provides evidence for a two-factor IUS structure consistent with some prior research, as well as acceptable reliability. Implications for implementation research evaluating the usability of complex health interventions are discussed, including the potential for future comparisons across multiple interventions and provider types, as well as the use of the IUS to evaluate the relationship between usability and implementation outcomes such as feasibility.

Plain language abstract

The ease with which evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) can be readily adopted and used by service providers is a key predictor of implementation success, but very little implementation research has attended to intervention usability. No quantitative instruments exist to evaluate the usability of complex health interventions, such as the EBPIs that are commonly used to integrate mental and behavioral health services into primary care. This article describes the evaluation of the first quantitative instrument for assessing the usability of complex health interventions and found that its factor structure replicated some research with the original version of the instrument, a scale developed to assess the usability of digital systems.

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

✪ Applying human-centered design to maximize acceptability, feasibility, and usability of mobile technology supervision in Kenya: A mixed methods pilot study protocol

Abstract:

Background

Although research continues to support task-shifting as an effective model of delivering evidence-based practices (EBPs), little scholarship has focused how to scale up and sustain task-shifting in low- and middle-income countries, including how to sustainably supervise lay counselors. Ongoing supervision is critical to ensure EBPs are delivered with fidelity; however, the resources and expertise required to provide ongoing supervision may limit the potential to scale up and sustain task shifting. Opportunities may exist to leverage mobile technology to replace or supplement in-person supervision in low-resource contexts, but contextual variables, such as network connectivity and lay counselor preferences surrounding mobile technology, must be examined and considered when designing and implementing mobile technology supervision.

Methods

This study builds from an existing randomized trial in Kenya, wherein teachers and community health volunteers have been trained to provide trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy as lay counselors. The study will use an iterative and mixed methods approach, with qualitative interviews and a Human-Centered Design (HCD) workshop informing a non-randomized pilot trial. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with lay counselors and supervisors to understand how mobile technology is currently being used for supervision and determine the barriers and facilitators to mobile technology supervision. Data from these interviews will inform an HCD workshop, where lay counselors and supervisors “re-design” supervision to most effectively leverage mobile technology. Workshop participants will also participate in focus groups to gather perceptions on the use of HCD techniques. The final outcome of the workshop will be a set of refined workflows, which will be tested in a mixed method, nonrandomized pilot with newly trained lay counselors and existing supervisors. The pilot trial will evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and usability of mobile technology supervision through self-report questionnaires as well as perceptions of effectiveness through qualitative interviews with a subset of lay counselors and all supervisors.

Discussion

This study will provide a launching point for future research on supervision and methods to engage stakeholders to design and tailor interventions and implementation supports to fit low-resourced contexts.

Trial registration

The parent trial from which this study builds was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on August 9, 2017 (NCT03243396).

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

✪ Aligning implementation and user-centered design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: results from a concept mapping study

Abstract:

Background

Innovative approaches are needed to maximize fit between the characteristics of evidence-based practices (EBPs), implementation strategies that support EBP use, and contexts in which EBPs are implemented. Standard approaches to implementation offer few ways to address such issues of fit. We characterized the potential for collaboration with experts from a relevant complementary approach, user-centered design (UCD), to increase successful implementation.

Method

Using purposive and snowball sampling, we recruited 56 experts in implementation (n = 34) or UCD (n = 22). Participants had 5+ years of professional experience (M = 10.31), worked across many settings (e.g., healthcare, education, human services), and were mostly female (59%) and white (73%). Each participant completed a web-based concept mapping structured conceptualization task. They sorted strategies from established compilations for implementation (36 strategies) and UCD (30 strategies) into distinct clusters, then rated the importance and feasibility of each strategy.

Results

We used multidimensional scaling techniques to examine patterns in the sorting of strategies. Based on conceptual clarity and fit with established implementation frameworks, we selected a final set of 10 clusters (i.e., groups of strategies), with five implementation-only clusters, two UCD-only clusters, and three trans-discipline clusters. The highest-priority activities (i.e., above-average importance and feasibility) were the trans-discipline clusters plus facilitate change and monitor change. Implementation and UCD experts sorted strategies into similar clusters, but each gave higher importance and feasibility ratings to strategies/clusters from their own discipline.

Conclusions

In this concept mapping study, experts in implementation and UCD had perspectives that both converged (e.g., trans-discipline clusters, which were all rated as high-priority) and diverged (e.g., in importance/feasibility ratings). The results provide a shared understanding of the alignment between implementation science and UCD, which can increase the impact and sustainability of EBP implementation efforts. Implications for improved collaboration among implementation and UCD experts are discussed.

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

✪ Use of Human-Centered Design to Improve Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies in Low-Resource Communities: Protocol for Studies Applying a Framework to Assess Usability 

Abstract:

Background

This paper presents the protocol for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)–funded University of Washington’s ALACRITY (Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness) Center (UWAC), which uses human-centered design (HCD) methods to improve the implementation of evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs). We propose that usability—the degree to which interventions and implementation strategies can be used with ease, efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction—is a fundamental, yet poorly understood determinant of implementation.

Objective

We present a novel Discover, Design/Build, and Test (DDBT) framework to study usability as an implementation determinant. DDBT will be applied across Center projects to develop scalable and efficient implementation strategies (eg, training tools), modify existing EBPIs to enhance usability, and create usable and nonburdensome decision support tools for quality delivery of EBPIs.

Methods

Stakeholder participants will be implementation practitioners/intermediaries, mental health clinicians, and patients with mental illness in nonspecialty mental health settings in underresourced communities. Three preplanned projects and 12 pilot studies will employ the DDBT model to (1) identify usability challenges in implementing EBPIs in underresourced settings; (2) iteratively design solutions to overcome these challenges; and (3) compare the solution to the original version of the EPBI or implementation strategy on usability, quality of care, and patient-reported outcomes. The final products from the center will be a streamlined modification and redesign model that will improve the usability of EBPIs and implementation strategies (eg, tools to support EBPI education and decision making); a matrix of modification targets (ie, usability issues) that are both common and unique to EBPIs, strategies, settings, and patient populations; and a compilation of redesign strategies and the relative effectiveness of the redesigned solution compared to the original EBPI or strategy.

Results

The UWAC received institutional review board approval for the three separate studies in March 2018 and was funded in May 2018.

Conclusions

The outcomes from this center will inform the implementation of EBPIs by identifying cross-cutting features of EBPIs and implementation strategies that influence the use and acceptability of these interventions, actively involving stakeholder clinicians and implementation practitioners in the design of the EBPI modification or implementation strategy solution and identifying the impact of HCD-informed modifications and solutions on intervention effectiveness and quality.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03515226 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03515226), NCT03514394 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514394), and NCT03516513 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03516513).

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14990

^{**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

Discussion

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text in the subscription access journal Extended Abstracts on Human Factors Computing Systems. CHI Conference

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Research and Practice

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Plain language abstract

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial Registration

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text open access in the subscription access journal Translational Behavioral Medicine