Training opioid addiction treatment providers to adopt contingency management: A prospective pilot trial of a comprehensive implementation science approach

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have evaluated theory-driven approaches to the implementation of evidence-based opioid treatment. This study compared the effectiveness of an implementation model (Science to Service Laboratory; SSL) to training as usual (TAU) in promoting the adoption of contingency management across a multi-site opiate addiction treatment program. We also examined whether the SSL affected putative mediators of contingency management adoption (perceived innovation characteristics and organizational readiness to change). METHODS: Sixty treatment providers (39 SSL, 21 TAU) from 15 geographically diverse satellite clinics (7 SSL, 8 TAU) participated in the 12-month study. Both conditions received didactic contingency management training and those in the pre-determined experimental region received 9 months of SSL-enhanced training. Contingency management adoption was monitored biweekly, while putative mediators were measured at baseline, 3-, and 12-months. RESULTS: Relative to providers in the TAU region, treatment providers in the SSL region had comparable likelihood of contingency management adoption in the first 20 weeks of the study, and then significantly higher likelihood of adoption (odds ratios = 2.4-13.5) for the remainder of the study. SSL providers also reported higher levels of one perceived innovation characteristic (Observability) and one aspect of organizational readiness to change (Adequacy of Training Resources), although there was no evidence that the SSL affected these putative mediators over time. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that a fully powered randomized trial of the SSL is warranted. Considerations for a future evaluation are discussed

A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework

© 2015 Moullin et al. Background: Implementation science and knowledge translation have developed across multiple disciplines with the common aim of bringing innovations to practice. Numerous implementation frameworks, models, and theories have been developed to target a diverse array of innovations. As such, it is plausible that not all frameworks include the full range of concepts now thought to be involved in implementation. Users face the decision of selecting a single or combining multiple implementation frameworks. To aid this decision, the aim of this review was to assess the comprehensiveness of existing frameworks. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed to identify implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare published from 2004 to May 2013. Additionally, titles and abstracts from Implementation Science journal and references from identified papers were reviewed. The orientation, type, and presence of stages and domains, along with the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of factors, strategies, and evaluations of implementation of included frameworks were analysed. Results: Frameworks were assessed individually and grouped according to their targeted innovation. Frameworks for particular innovations had similar settings, end-users, and 'type' (descriptive, prescriptive, explanatory, or predictive). On the whole, frameworks were descriptive and explanatory more often than prescriptive and predictive. A small number of the reviewed frameworks covered an implementation concept(s) in detail, however, overall, there was limited degree and depth of analysis of implementation concepts. The core implementation concepts across the frameworks were collated to form a Generic Implementation Framework, which includes the process of implementation (often portrayed as a series of stages and/or steps), the innovation to be implemented, the context in which the implementation is to occur (divided into a range of domains), and influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations. Conclusions: The selection of implementation framework(s) should be based not solely on the healthcare innovation to be implemented, but include other aspects of the framework's orientation, e.g., the setting and end-user, as well as the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of the implementation concepts. The resulting generic structure provides researchers, policy-makers, health administrators, and practitioners a base that can be used as guidance for their implementation efforts