Guatemala & the University of Pennsylvania: Meeting in the Middle

The GUATEMALA-PENN relationship is a partnership that is borne from more than a century of research, service and scholarship. Our goal, with this book and with our programs, is to grow this partnership based upon the reciprocal needs of our Guatemalan stakeholders and the mission of the university. Guatemala is only one country away from the US. Our shared heritage and joint economic and social interests make it critical to foster a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between our two countries. Our connections have evolved over time in response to new knowledge gained about each other. This book is a testament to our collective past, present and future. For more information or to donate visit: http://www.med.upenn.edu/globalhealth/guatemalapartners.shtm

Guatemala & the University of Pennsylvania: Meeting in the Middle

The GUATEMALA-PENN relationship is a partnership that is borne from more than a century of research, service and scholarship. Our goal, with this book and with our programs, is to grow this partnership based upon the reciprocal needs of our Guatemalan stakeholders and the mission of the university. Guatemala is only one country away from the US. Our shared heritage and joint economic and social interests make it critical to foster a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between our two countries. Our connections have evolved over time in response to new knowledge gained about each other. This book is a testament to our collective past, present and future. For more information or to donate visit: http://www.med.upenn.edu/globalhealth/guatemalapartners.shtm

African-American and White Women’s Appraisal of their Breast Cancer

African-American women are less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than are White women but are more likely to be adversely affected. Although differences in incidence and mortality have been explored in some depth, little attention has been paid to how these women cope with the disease or whether their appraisal of their breast cancer differs from that of White women. Using a comparative design, this study analyzed the differences in appraisal between African-American and White women with breast cancer. The findings suggest that no differences exist between African-American and White women’s appraisal of their breast cancer. The type of primary appraisal used most by both groups was harm to their health, safety, and physical well-being. The secondary appraisal used most was that breast cancer was an experience they had to accept. Possible links between appraisal and cognitive representations of illness and suggestions for further research on the appraisal are discussed

Practical Guidance for Studies Using Freelisting Interviews.

Freelisting is a qualitative interviewing technique that has recently grown in popularity. It is an excellent tool for rapidly exploring how groups of people think about and define a particular health-related domain and is well suited for engaging communities and identifying shared priorities. In this article, we outline 7 practical considerations for conducting freelisting studies summarized from 16 articles conducted by the authors at the University of Pennsylvania and Thomas Jefferson University in partnership with community-based organizations and students. Our recommendations can inform study design, data collection, and data analysis for investigators who are interested in using freelisting interviews in their research

Click Worthy: Stories Encourage Emergency Physicians to Learn More About Opioid Prescribing Guidelines

Narrative vignettes outperform standard summaries in promoting engagement with opioid prescription guidelines among a national sample of emergency physicians

A Complementary Marriage of Perspectives: Understanding Organizational Social Context Using Mixed Methods

Background: Organizational factors impact the delivery of mental health services in community settings. Mixed-methods analytic approaches have been recommended, though little research within implementation science has explicitly compared inductive and deductive perspectives to understand their relative value in understanding the same constructs. The purpose of our study is to use two different paradigmatic approaches to deepen our understanding of organizational social context. We accomplish this by using a mixed-methods approach in an investigation of organizational social context in community mental health clinics. Methods: Nineteen agencies, representing 23 sites, participated. Enrolled participants included 130 therapists, 36 supervisors, and 22 executive administrators. Quantitative data was obtained via the Organizational Social Context (OSC) measure. Qualitative data, comprised of direct observation with spot sampling generated from agency visits, was coded using content analysis and grounded theory. The present study examined elements of organizational social context that would have been missed if only quantitative data had been obtained and utilized mixed methods to investigate if stratifying observations based on quantitative ratings from the OSC resulted in the emergence of differential themes. Results: Four of the six OSC constructs were commonly observed in field observations (i.e., proficiency, rigidity, functionality, stress), while the remaining two constructs were not frequently observed (i.e., resistance, engagement). Constructs emerged related to organizational social context that may have been missed if only quantitative measurement was employed, including those around the physical environment, commentary about evidence-based practice initiatives, leadership, cultural diversity, distrust, and affect. Stratifying agencies by “best,” “average,” and “worst” organizational social context impacted interpretation for three constructs (affect, stress, and leadership). Conclusions: Results support the additive value of integrating inductive and deductive perspectives in implementation science research. This synthesis of approaches facilitated a more comprehensive understanding and interpretation of the findings than would have been possible if either methodology had been employed in isolation

Policy to Implementation: Evidence-Based Practice in Community Mental Health — Study Protocol

Background: Evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are not widely available in community mental health settings. In response to the call for implementation of evidence-based treatments in the United States, states and counties have mandated behavioral health reform through policies and other initiatives. Evaluations of the impact of these policies on implementation are rare. A systems transformation about to occur in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offers an important opportunity to prospectively study implementation in response to a policy mandate. Methods/design: Using a prospective sequential mixed-methods design, with observations at multiple points in time, we will investigate the responses of staff from 30 community mental health clinics to a policy from the Department of Behavioral Health encouraging and incentivizing providers to implement evidence-based treatments to treat youth with mental health problems. Study participants will be 30 executive directors, 30 clinical directors, and 240 therapists. Data will be collected prior to the policy implementation, and then at two and four years following policy implementation. Quantitative data will include measures of intervention implementation and potential moderators of implementation (i.e., organizational- and leader-level variables) and will be collected from executive directors, clinical directors, and therapists. Measures include self-reported therapist fidelity to evidence-based treatment techniques as measured by the Organizational Social Context Measurement System and the Implementation Climate Assessment, leader variables as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, attitudes towards EDTs as measured by the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale, and knowledge of EBTs as measured by the knowledge of Evidence-Based Services Questionnaire. Qualitative data will include semi-structured interviews with a subset of the sample to assess the implementation experience of high-, average-, and low-performing agencies. Mixed methods will be integrated through comparing and contrasting results from the two methods for each of the primary hypotheses in this study. Discussion: Findings from the proposed research will inform both future policy mandates around implementation and the support required for the success of these policies, with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of treatment provided to youth in the public sector

A Mixed Methods Study of Individual and Organizational Factors that Affect Implementation of Interventions for Children with Autism in Public Schools

Background: The significant lifelong impairments associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), combined with the growing number of children diagnosed with ASD, have created urgency in improving school-based quality of care. Although many interventions have shown efficacy in university-based research, few have been effectively implemented and sustained in schools, the primary setting in which children with ASD receive services. Individual- and organizational-level factors have been shown to predict the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for the prevention and treatment of other mental disorders in schools, and may be potential targets for implementation strategies in the successful use of autism EBIs in schools. The purpose of this study is to examine the individual- and organizational-level factors associated with the implementation of EBIs for children with ASD in public schools. Methods: We will apply the Domitrovich and colleagues (2008) framework that examines the influence of contextual factors (i.e., individual- and organizational-level factors) on intervention implementation in schools. We utilize mixed methods to quantitatively test whether the factors identified in the Domitrovich and colleagues (2008) framework are associated with the implementation of autism EBIs, and use qualitative methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors associated with successful implementation and sustainment of these interventions with the goal of tailoring implementation strategies. Discussion: The results of this study will provide an in-depth understanding of individual- and organizational-level factors that influence the successful implementation of EBIs for children with ASD in public schools. These data will inform potential implementation targets and tailoring of strategies that will help schools overcome barriers to implementation and ultimately improve the services and outcomes for children with ASD

Predictors of Community Therapists\u27 Use of Therapy Techniques in a Large Public Mental Health System

Importance Few studies have examined the effects of individual and organizational characteristics on the use of evidence-based practices in mental health care. Improved understanding of these factors could guide future implementation efforts to ensure effective adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based practices. Objective To estimate the relative contribution of individual and organizational factors on therapist self-reported use of cognitive-behavioral, family, and psychodynamic therapy techniques within the context of a large-scale effort to increase use of evidence-based practices in an urban public mental health system serving youth and families. Design, Setting, and Participants In this observational, cross-sectional study of 23 organizations, data were collected from March 1 through July 25, 2013. We used purposive sampling to recruit the 29 largest child-serving agencies, which together serve approximately 80% of youth receiving publically funded mental health care. The final sample included 19 agencies with 23 sites, 130 therapists, 36 supervisors, and 22 executive administrators. Main Outcomes and Measures Therapist self-reported use of cognitive-behavioral, family, and psychodynamic therapy techniques, as measured by the Therapist Procedures Checklist–Family Revised. Results Individual factors accounted for the following percentages of the overall variation: cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques, 16%; family therapy techniques, 7%; and psychodynamic therapy techniques, 20%. Organizational factors accounted for the following percentages of the overall variation: cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques, 23%; family therapy techniques, 19%; and psychodynamic therapy techniques, 7%. Older therapists and therapists with more open attitudes were more likely to endorse use of cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques, as were those in organizations that had spent fewer years participating in evidence-based practice initiatives, had more resistant cultures, and had more functional climates. Women were more likely to endorse use of family therapy techniques, as were those in organizations employing more fee-for-service staff and with more stressful climates. Therapists with more divergent attitudes and less knowledge about evidence-based practices were more likely to use psychodynamic therapy techniques. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that individual and organizational factors are important in explaining therapist behavior and use of evidence-based practices, but the relative importance varies by therapeutic technique

Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study of Operating Room to Intensive Care Unit Handoffs

Background: Operating room to intensive care unit handoffs are high-risk events for critically ill patients. Studies in selected patient populations show that standardizing operating room to intensive care unit handoffs improves information exchange and decreases errors. To adapt these findings to mixed surgical populations, we propose to study the implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process in two intensive care units currently without an existing standard process. Methods/Design: The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study is a hybrid effectiveness- implementation trial of operating room to intensive care unit handoffs. We will use mixed methods to conduct a needs assessment of the current handoff process, adapt published handoff processes, and implement a new standardized handoff process in two academic intensive care units. Needs assessment: We will use non-participant observation to observe the current handoff process. Focus groups, interviews, and surveys of clinicians will elicit participants’ impressions about the current process. Adaptation and implementation: We will adapt published standardized handoff processes using the needs assessment findings. We will use small group simulation to test the new process’ feasibility. After simulation, we will incorporate the new handoff process into the clinical work of all providers in the study units. Evaluation: Using the same methods employed in the needs assessment phase, we will evaluate use of the new handoff process. Data analysis: The primary effectiveness outcome is the number of information omissions per handoff episode as compared to the pre-intervention period. Additional intervention outcomes include patient intensive care unit length of stay and intensive care unit mortality. The primary implementation outcome is acceptability of the new process. Additional implementation outcomes include feasibility, fidelity and sustainability. Discussion: The HATRICC study will examine the effectiveness and implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process. Findings from this study have the potential to improve healthcare communication and outcomes for critically ill patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02267174. Date of registration October 16, 2014