The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study.

UnlabelledABSTBACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices have not been routinely adopted in community mental health organizations despite the support of scientific evidence and in some cases even legislative or regulatory action. We examined the association of clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice with organizational culture, climate, and other characteristics in a nationally representative sample of mental health organizations in the United States.MethodsIn-person, group-administered surveys were conducted with a sample of 1,112 mental health service providers in a nationwide sample of 100 mental health service institutions in 26 states in the United States. The study examines these associations with a two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analysis of responses to the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) at the individual clinician level as a function of the Organizational Social Context (OSC) measure at the organizational level, controlling for other organization and clinician characteristics.ResultsWe found that more proficient organizational cultures and more engaged and less stressful organizational climates were associated with positive clinician attitudes toward adopting evidence-based practice.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that organizational intervention strategies for improving the organizational social context of mental health services may contribute to the success of evidence-based practice dissemination and implementation efforts by influencing clinician attitudes

Mixed Method Designs in Implementation Research

This paper describes the application of mixed method designs in implementation research in 22 mental health services research studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 5 years. Our analyses revealed 7 different structural arrangements of qualitative and quantitative methods, 5 different functions of mixed methods, and 3 different ways of linking quantitative and qualitative data together. Complexity of design was associated with number of aims or objectives, study context, and phase of implementation examined. The findings provide suggestions for the use of mixed method designs in implementation research

The implementation research institute: Training mental health implementation researchers in the United States

Abstract Background The Implementation Research Institute (IRI) provides two years of training in mental health implementation science for 10 new fellows each year. The IRI is supported by a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) R25 grant and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Fellows attend two annual week-long trainings at Washington University in St. Louis. Training is provided through a rigorous curriculum, local and national mentoring, a ‘learning site visit’ to a federally funded implementation research project, pilot research, and grant writing. Methods This paper describes the rationale, components, outcomes to date, and participant experiences with IRI. Results IRI outcomes include 31 newly trained implementation researchers, their new grant proposals, contributions to other national dissemination and implementation research training, and publications in implementation science authored by the Core Faculty and fellows. Former fellows have obtained independent research funding in implementation science and are beginning to serve as mentors for more junior investigators. Conclusions Based on the number of implementation research grant proposals and papers produced by fellows to date, the IRI is proving successful in preparing new researchers who can inform the process of making evidence-based mental healthcare more available through real-world settings of care and who are advancing the field of implementation science

An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation

The wide variety of dissemination and implementation designs now being used to evaluate and improve health systems and outcomes warrants review of the scope, features, and limitations of these designs

Recurrent Chromosome 16p13.1 Duplications Are a Risk Factor for Aortic Dissections

Chromosomal deletions or reciprocal duplications of the 16p13.1 region have been implicated in a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, epilepsies, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In this study, we investigated the association of recurrent genomic copy number variants (CNVs) with thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections (TAAD). By using SNP arrays to screen and comparative genomic hybridization microarrays to validate, we identified 16p13.1 duplications in 8 out of 765 patients of European descent with adult-onset TAAD compared with 4 of 4,569 controls matched for ethnicity (P = 5.0×10−5, OR = 12.2). The findings were replicated in an independent cohort of 467 patients of European descent with TAAD (P = 0.005, OR = 14.7). Patients with 16p13.1 duplications were more likely to harbor a second rare CNV (P = 0.012) and to present with aortic dissections (P = 0.010) than patients without duplications. Duplications of 16p13.1 were identified in 2 of 130 patients with familial TAAD, but the duplications did not segregate with TAAD in the families. MYH11, a gene known to predispose to TAAD, lies in the duplicated region of 16p13.1, and increased MYH11 expression was found in aortic tissues from TAAD patients with 16p13.1 duplications compared with control aortas. These data suggest chromosome 16p13.1 duplications confer a risk for TAAD in addition to the established risk for neuropsychiatric disorders. It also indicates that recurrent CNVs may predispose to disorders involving more than one organ system, an observation critical to the understanding of the role of recurrent CNVs in human disease and a finding that may be common to other recurrent CNVs involving multiple genes

The Eye of the Beholder: Youths and Parents Differ on What Matters in Mental Health Services

The goal of this study was to examine the degree to which youths and caregivers attend to different factors in evaluating their experiences with mental health programs. Youth (n = 251) receiving mental health services at community agencies and their caregivers (n = 275) were asked open-ended questions regarding the positive and negative aspects of the services. Qualitative analyses revealed some agreement but also divergence between youth and caregivers regarding the criteria by which services were evaluated and aspects of services that were valued most highly. Youths’ positive comments primarily focused on treatment outcomes while caregivers focused more on characteristics of the program and provider. Youths’ negative comments reflected dissatisfaction with the program, provider, and types of services offered while caregivers expressed dissatisfaction mainly with program characteristics. Results support the importance of assessing both youth and caregivers in attempts to understand the factors used by consumers to evaluate youth mental health services

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