Collaborative research between clinicians and researchers: a multiple case study of implementation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bottom-up, clinician-conceived and directed clinical intervention research, coupled with collaboration from researcher experts, is conceptually endorsed by the participatory research movement. This report presents the findings of an evaluation of a program in the Veterans Health Administration meant to encourage clinician-driven research by providing resources believed to be critical. The evaluation focused on the extent to which funded projects: maintained integrity to their original proposals; were methodologically rigorous; were characterized by collaboration between partners; and resulted in sustained clinical impact.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Researchers used quantitative (survey and archival) and qualitative (focus group) data to evaluate the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of four clinical demonstration projects at four sites. Fourteen research center mentors and seventeen clinician researchers evaluated the level of collaboration using a six-dimensional model of participatory research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Results yielded mixed findings. Qualitative and quantitative data suggested that although the process was collaborative, clinicians' prior research experience was critical to the quality of the projects. Several challenges were common across sites, including subject recruitment, administrative support and logistics, and subsequent dissemination. Only one intervention achieved lasting clinical effect beyond the active project period. Qualitative analyses identified barriers and facilitators and suggested areas to improve sustainability.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Evaluation results suggest that this participatory research venture was successful in achieving clinician-directed collaboration, but did not produce sustainable interventions due to such implementation problems as lack of resources and administrative support.</p

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP

Additional file 2: of Using implementation facilitation to foster clinical practice quality and adherence to evidence in challenged settings: a qualitative study

PC-MHI program components summary template. Template for creating a summary of the components of each facility’s program for integrating mental health services into primary care. Designed for use with the “PC-MHI Program Component Assessment Interview Guide.” (DOCX 52 kb

The role of gender in moderating treatment outcome in collaborative care for anxiety.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to test whether gender moderates intervention effects in the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) intervention, a 12-month, randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for anxiety disorders (panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and social anxiety disorder) in 17 primary care clinics in California, Washington, and Arkansas.MethodsParticipants (N=1,004) completed measures of symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]) and functioning (mental and physical health components of the 12-Item Short Form [MCS and PCS] and Healthy Days, Restricted Activity Days Scale) at baseline, six, 12, and 18 months. Data on dose, engagement, and beliefs about psychotherapy were collected for patients in the collaborative care group.ResultsGender moderated the relationship between treatment and its outcome on the BSI, MCS, and Healthy Days measures but not on the PCS. Women who received collaborative care showed clinical improvements on the BSI, MHC, and Healthy Days that were significantly different from outcomes for women in usual care. There were no differences for men in collaborative care compared with usual care on any measures. In the intervention group, women compared with men attended more sessions of psychotherapy, completed more modules of therapy, expressed more commitment, and viewed psychotherapy as more helpful.ConclusionsThese findings contribute to the broader literature on treatment heterogeneity, in particular the influence of gender, and may inform personalized care for people seeking anxiety treatment in primary care settings

Men, Women, and the Ballot Woman Suffrage in theUnited States

Woman suffrage led to the greatest enfranchisement in the history of the United States. Before World War I, however, suffrage states remained almost exclusively confined to the American West. The reasons for this pioneering role of the West are still unclear. Studying the timing of woman suffrage adoption at state level, we find that states in which women were scarce (the West) enfranchised their women much earlier than states in which the sex ratio was more balanced (the rest of the country). High sex ratios in the West, that is high ratios of grantors to grantees, reduced the political costs and risks to male electorates and legislators of extending the franchise. They are also likely to have enhanced female bargaining power and may have made woman suffrage more attractive in the eyes of western legislators that sought to attract more women to their states. Our finding of a reduced-form inverse relationship between the relative size of a group and its success in securing the ballot may be of use also for the study of other franchise extensions and for inquieries into the dynamics of political power sharing more generally