Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Social support and physical activity as moderators of life stress in predicting baseline depression and change in depression over time in the Women\u27s Health Initiative

Purpose: To determine whether social support and/or physical activity buffer the association between stressors and increasing risk of depression symptoms at baseline and at 3-year follow-up. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from the Women\u27s Health Initiative Observational Study. 91,912 community-dwelling post-menopausal women participated in this prospective cohort study. Depression symptoms were measured at baseline and 3 years later; social support, physical activity, and stressors were measured at baseline. Results: Stressors at baseline, including verbal abuse, physical abuse, caregiving, social strain, negative life events, financial stress, low income, acute pain, and a greater number of chronic medical conditions, were all associated with higher levels of depression symptoms at baseline and new onset elevated symptoms at 3-year follow-up. Social support and physical activity were associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms. Contrary to expectation, more social support at baseline strengthened the association between concurrent depression and physical abuse, social strain, caregiving, and low income. Similarly, more social support at baseline increased the association between financial stress, income, and pain on new onset depression 3 years later. Physical activity similarly moderated the effect of caregiving, income, and pain on depression symptoms at baseline. Conclusion: Stressors, social support, and physical activity showed predicted main effect associations with depression. Multiplicative interactions were small in magnitude and in the opposite direction of what was expected. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

A novel approach for assessing bias during team-based clinical decision-making

Many clinical processes include multidisciplinary group decision-making, yet few methods exist to evaluate the presence of implicit bias during this collective process. Implicit bias negatively impacts the equitable delivery of evidence-based interventions and ultimately patient outcomes. Since implicit bias can be difficult to assess, novel approaches are required to detect and analyze this elusive phenomenon. In this paper, we describe how the de Groot Critically Reflective Diagnoses Protocol (DCRDP) can be used as a data analysis tool to evaluate group dynamics as an essential foundation for exploring how interactions can bias collective clinical decision-making. The DCRDP includes 6 distinct criteria: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, research utilization, openness to mistakes, asking and giving feedback, and experimentation. Based on the strength and frequency of codes in the form of exemplar quotes, each criterion was given a numerical score of 1–4 with 1 representing teams that are interactive, reflective, higher functioning, and more equitable. When applied as a coding scheme to transcripts of recorded decision-making meetings, the DCRDP was revealed as a practical tool for examining group decision-making bias. It can be adapted to a variety of clinical, educational, and other professional settings as an impetus for recognizing the presence of team-based bias, engaging in reflexivity, informing the design and testing of implementation strategies, and monitoring long-term outcomes to promote more equitable decision-making processes in healthcare

Group Dynamics and Allocation of Advanced Heart Failure Therapies—Heart Transplants and Ventricular Assist Devices—By Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Group

Background US regulatory framework for advanced heart failure therapies (AHFT), ventricular assist devices, and heart transplants, delegate eligibility decisions to multidisciplinary groups at the center level. The subjective nature of decision‐making is at risk for racial, ethnic, and gender bias. We sought to determine how group dynamics impact allocation decision‐making by patient gender, racial, and ethnic group. Methods and Results We performed a mixed‐methods study among 4 AHFT centers. For ≈ 1 month, AHFT meetings were audio recorded. Meeting transcripts were evaluated for group function scores using de Groot Critically Reflective Diagnoses protocol (metrics: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, openness to mistakes, asking/giving feedback, and experimentation; scoring: 1 to 4 [high to low quality]). The relationship between summed group function scores and AHFT allocation was assessed via hierarchical logistic regression with patients nested within meetings nested within centers, and interaction effects of group function score with gender and race, adjusting for patient age and comorbidities. Among 87 patients (24% women, 66% White race) evaluated for AHFT, 57% of women, 38% of men, 44% of White race, and 40% of patients of color were allocated to AHFT. The interaction between group function score and allocation by patient gender was statistically significant (P=0.035); as group function scores improved, the probability of AHFT allocation increased for women and decreased for men, a pattern that was similar irrespective of racial and ethnic groups. Conclusions Women evaluated for AHFT were more likely to receive AHFT when group decision‐making processes were of higher quality. Further investigation is needed to promote routine high‐quality group decision‐making and reduce known disparities in AHFT allocation