Developing and applying synergistic multilevel implementation strategies to promote reach of an evidence-based parenting intervention in primary care

Background: This practical implementation report describes a primary care-based group parenting intervention—Child–Adult Relationship Enhancement in Primary Care (PriCARE)—and the approach taken to understand and strengthen the referral process for PriCARE within a pediatric primary care clinic through the deployment of synergistic implementation strategies to promote physician referrals. PriCARE has evidence of effectiveness for reducing child behavior problems, harsh and permissive parenting, and parent stress from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The integration of evidence-based parenting interventions into pediatric primary care is a promising means for widespread dissemination. Yet, even when integrated into this setting, the true reach will depend on parents knowing about and attending the intervention. A key factor in this process is the endorsement of and referral to the intervention by the child's pediatrician. Therefore, identifying strategies to improve physician referrals to parenting interventions embedded in primary care is worthy of investigation. Method: Through lessons learned from the RCTs and key informant interviews with stakeholders, we identified barriers and facilitators to physician referrals of eligible parent–child dyads to PriCARE. Based on this data, we selected and implemented five strategies to increase the PriCARE referral rate. We outline the selection process, the postulated synergistic interactions, and the results of these efforts. Conclusions: The following five discrete strategies were implemented: physician reminders, direct advertising to patients, incentives/public recognition, interpersonal patient narratives, and audit and feedback. These discrete strategies were synergistically combined to create a multifaceted approach to improve physician referrals. Following implementation, referrals increased from 13% to 55%. Continued development, application, and evaluation of implementation strategies to promote the uptake of evidence-based parenting interventions into general use in the primary care setting are discussed. Plain Language Summary There is strong evidence that parenting interventions are effective at improving child behavioral health outcomes when delivered in coordination with pediatric primary care. However, there is a lack of focus on the implementation, including the screening and referral process, of parenting interventions in the primary care setting. This is contributing to the delay in the scale-up of parenting interventions and to achieving public health impact. To address this gap, we identified barriers and facilitators to physician screening and referrals to a primary care-based parenting intervention, and selected and piloted five synergistic strategies to improve this critical process. This effort successfully increased physician referrals of eligible patients to the intervention from 13% to 55%. This demonstration project may help advance the implementation of evidence-based interventions by providing an example of how to develop and execute multilevel strategies to improve intervention referrals in a local context

A research protocol for studying participatory processes in the use of evidence in child welfare systems

This paper presents a protocol for a funded study of technical assistance strategies used to support the use of evidence, and, in particular, how participatory processes contribute to the use of evidence to improve outcomes for populations. Findings from the study will increase understanding of the relationships between technical assistance, stakeholder participation and evidence use in child and family services. The authors argue that publishing such a protocol can increase transparency between researchers and practitioners and raise awareness of the need for research on how stakeholder participation can strengthen evidence use in child welfare service settings. The authors also reflect on the potential value and limitations of published protocols. This study will systematically gather input from stakeholders with expertise in technical assistance to develop a compilation of strategies that can be used to support the use of evidence. The study will identify strategies that include stakeholder involvement and assess which strategies under what conditions facilitated the use of research evidence. The study will address four research questions: What technical assistance strategies are used to support the use of research evidence? What are the consensus-driven terms and definitions of identified strategies? To what extent do technical assistance strategies involve stakeholders and for what purpose

Mental health clinicians’ experiences of implementing evidence-based treatments.

Implementation research has tremendous potential to bridge the research-practice gap; however, we know more about barriers to evidence-based care than the factors that contribute to the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based treatments (EBTs). This qualitative study explores the experiences of clinicians (N = 11) who were implementing EBTs, highlighting the factors that they perceived to be most critical to successful implementation. The clinicians’ narratives reveal many leverage points that can inform administrators, clinical supervisors, and clinicians who wish to implement EBTs, as well as other stakeholders who wish to develop and test strategies for moving EBTs into routine care

Mental health clinicians’ experiences of implementing evidence-based treatments.

Implementation research has tremendous potential to bridge the research-practice gap; however, we know more about barriers to evidence-based care than the factors that contribute to the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based treatments (EBTs). This qualitative study explores the experiences of clinicians (N = 11) who were implementing EBTs, highlighting the factors that they perceived to be most critical to successful implementation. The clinicians’ narratives reveal many leverage points that can inform administrators, clinical supervisors, and clinicians who wish to implement EBTs, as well as other stakeholders who wish to develop and test strategies for moving EBTs into routine care

Examining the complementarity between the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies and the behaviour change technique taxonomy: A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND: Efforts to generate evidence for implementation strategies are frustrated by insufficient description. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation names and defines implementation strategies; however, further work is needed to describe the actions involved. One potentially complementary taxonomy is the behaviour change techniques (BCT) taxonomy. We aimed to examine the extent and nature of the overlap between these taxonomies. METHODS: Definitions and descriptions of 73 strategies in the ERIC compilation were analysed. First, each description was deductively coded using the BCT taxonomy. Second, a typology was developed to categorise the extent of overlap between ERIC strategies and BCTs. Third, three implementation scientists independently rated their level of agreement with the categorisation and BCT coding. Finally, discrepancies were settled through online consensus discussions. Additional patterns of complementarity between ERIC strategies and BCTs were labelled thematically. Descriptive statistics summarise the frequency of coded BCTs and the number of strategies mapped to each of the categories of the typology. RESULTS: Across the 73 strategies, 41/93 BCTs (44%) were coded, with \u27restructuring the social environment\u27 as the most frequently coded (n=18 strategies, 25%). There was direct overlap between one strategy (change physical structure and equipment) and one BCT (\u27restructuring physical environment\u27). Most strategy descriptions (n=64) had BCTs that were clearly indicated (n=18), and others where BCTs were probable but not explicitly described (n=31) or indicated multiple types of overlap (n=15). For some strategies, the presence of additional BCTs was dependent on the form of delivery. Some strategies served as examples of broad BCTs operationalised for implementation. For eight strategies, there were no BCTs indicated, or they did not appear to focus on changing behaviour. These strategies reflected preparatory stages and targeted collective cognition at the system level rather than behaviour change at the service delivery level. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how the ERIC compilation and BCT taxonomy can be integrated to specify active ingredients, providing an opportunity to better understand mechanisms of action. Our results highlight complementarity rather than redundancy. More efforts to integrate these or other taxonomies will aid strategy developers and build links between existing silos in implementation science

Contextual Influences and Strategies for Dissemination and Implementation in Mental Health

Implementation science has emerged to bridge the gap between research and practice. A number of conceptual frameworks have been developed to advance implementation research and illuminate the contextual influences that can facilitate or impede the implementation of evidence-based practices. Contextual factors that may be important in the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practice may occur at the system-, organizational-, and provider-levels. System-level barriers may include external policies, incentives, and peer pressure. Organizational-level factors that are important in implementation include organizational culture and climate and implementation climate. At the individual provider-level, barriers may occur around provider attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy. Finally, additional barriers such as client-level that can be used to overcome contextual barriers when attempting to implement evidence-based practices into new settings. Several exemplar implementation strategies are discussed, including the Availability, Responsiveness, and Continuity intervention, Community Development Team model, and Interagency Collaborative Team Model

Child Adult Relationship Enhancement in Primary Care (PriCARE): Study design/protocol for a randomized trial of a primary care-based group parenting intervention to prevent child maltreatment

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment (CM) is a pervasive public health problem and there is a critical need for brief, effective, scalable prevention programs. Problematic parent-child relationships lie at the heart of CM. Parents who maltreat their children are more likely to have punitive parenting styles characterized by high rates of negative interaction and ineffective discipline strategies with over-reliance on punishment. Thus, parenting interventions that strengthen parent-child relationships, teach positive discipline techniques, decrease harsh parenting, and decrease child behavioral problems hold promise as CM prevention strategies. Challenges in engaging parents, particularly low-income and minority parents, and a lack of knowledge regarding effective implementation strategies, however, have greatly limited the reach and impact of parenting interventions. Child Adult Relationship Enhancement in Primary Care (PriCARE)/Criando Niños con CARIÑO is a 6-session group parenting intervention that holds promise in addressing these challenges because PriCARE/CARIÑO was (1) developed and iteratively adapted with input from racially and ethnically diverse families, including low-income families and (2) designed specifically for implementation in primary care with inclusion of strategies to align with usual care workflow to increase uptake and retention. METHODS: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms. Children, 2-6 years old with Medicaid/CHIP/no insurance, and their English- and Spanish-speaking caregivers recruited from pediatric primary care clinics in Philadelphia and North Carolina will be enrolled. Caregivers assigned to the intervention regimen will attend PriCARE/CARIÑO and receive usual care. Caregivers assigned to the control regimen will receive usual care only. The primary outcome is occurrence of an investigation for CM by child protective services during the 48 months following completion of the intervention. In addition, scores for CM risk, child behavior problems, harsh and neglectful parenting behaviors, caregiver stress, and caregiver-child interactions will be assessed as secondary outcome measures and for investigation of possible mechanisms of intervention-induced change. We will also identify PriCARE/CARIÑO implementation factors that may be barriers and facilitators to intervention referrals, enrollment, and attendance. DISCUSSION: By evaluating proximal outcomes in addition to the distal outcome of CM, this study, the largest CM prevention trial with individual randomization, will help elucidate mechanisms of change and advance the science of CM prevention. This study will also gather critical information on factors influencing successful implementation and how to optimize intervention referrals, enrollment, and attendance to inform future dissemination and practical applications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05233150) on February 1, 2022, prior to enrolling subjects

Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda

The field of implementation science was developed to better understand the factors that facilitate or impede implementation and generate evidence for implementation strategies. In this article, we briefly review progress in implementation science, and suggest five priorities for enhancing the impact of implementation strategies. Specifically, we suggest the need to: (1) enhance methods for designing and tailoring implementation strategies; (2) specify and test mechanisms of change; (3) conduct more effectiveness research on discrete, multi-faceted, and tailored implementation strategies; (4) increase economic evaluations of implementation strategies; and (5) improve the tracking and reporting of implementation strategies. We believe that pursuing these priorities will advance implementation science by helping us to understand when, where, why, and how implementation strategies improve implementation effectiveness and subsequent health outcomes

The Implementation Playbook: Study protocol for the development and feasibility evaluation of a digital tool for effective implementation of evidence-based innovations

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based innovations can improve health outcomes, but only if successfully implemented. Implementation can be complex, highly susceptible to failure, costly and resource intensive. Internationally, there is an urgent need to improve the implementation of effective innovations. Successful implementation is best guided by implementation science, but organizations lack implementation know-how and have difficulty applying it. Implementation support is typically shared in static, non-interactive, overly academic guides and is rarely evaluated. In-person implementation facilitation is often soft-funded, costly, and scarce. This study seeks to improve effective implementation by (1) developing a first-in-kind digital tool to guide pragmatic, empirically based and self-directed implementation planning in real-time; and (2) exploring the tool\u27s feasibility in six health organizations implementing different innovations. METHODS: Ideation emerged from a paper-based resource, The Implementation Game©, and a revision called The Implementation Roadmap©; both integrate core implementation components from evidence, models and frameworks to guide structured, explicit, and pragmatic planning. Prior funding also generated user personas and high-level product requirements. This study will design, develop, and evaluate the feasibility of a digital tool called The Implementation Playbook©. In Phase 1, user-centred design and usability testing will inform tool content, visual interface, and functions to produce a minimum viable product. Phase 2 will explore the Playbook\u27s feasibility in six purposefully selected health organizations sampled for maximum variation. Organizations will use the Playbook for up to 24 months to implement an innovation of their choosing. Mixed methods will gather: (i) field notes from implementation team check-in meetings; (ii) interviews with implementation teams about their experience using the tool; (iii) user free-form content entered into the tool as teams work through implementation planning; (iv) Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change questionnaire; (v) System Usability Scale; and (vi) tool metrics on how users progressed through activities and the time required to do so. DISCUSSION: Effective implementation of evidence-based innovations is essential for optimal health. We seek to develop a prototype digital tool and demonstrate its feasibility and usefulness across organizations implementing different innovations. This technology could fill a significant need globally, be highly scalable, and potentially valid for diverse organizations implementing various innovations