Mis-implementation of evidence-based behavioural health practices in primary care: lessons from randomised trials in Federally Qualified Health Centers

Author:

Dopp Alex R.1,Hindmarch Grace1,Chan Osilla Karen2,Meredith Lisa S.1,Manuel Jennifer K.3,Becker Kirsten1,Tarhuni Lina4,Schoenbaum Michael5,Komaromy Miriam6,Cassells Andrea7,Watkins Katherine E.1

Affiliation:

1. RAND Corporation, USA

2. Stanford University, USA

3. University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco VA Health Care System, USA

4. University of Washington, USA

5. National Institute of Mental Health, USA

6. Boston University, USA

7. Clinical Directors Network, Inc, USA

Abstract

Background:Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) within service systems is critical to population-level health improvements, but also challenging, especially for complex behavioural health interventions in low-resource settings. ‘Mis-implementation’ refers to poor outcomes from an EBP implementation effort; mis-implementation outcomes are an important, but largely untapped, source of information about how to improve knowledge exchange. Aims and objectives:We present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioural health EBPs in US Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). Methods:We adapted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and its Outcomes Addendum into a framework for mis-implementation and used it to structure the case summaries with information about the EBP and trial, mis-implementation outcomes, and associated determinants (barriers and facilitators). We compared the three cases to identify shared and unique mis-implementation factors. Findings:Across cases, there was limited adoption and fidelity to the interventions, which led to eventual discontinuation. Barriers contributing to mis-implementation included intervention complexity, low buy-in from overburdened providers, lack of alignment between providers and leadership, and COVID-19-related stressors. Mis-implementation occurred earlier in cases that experienced both patient- and provider-level barriers, and that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion and conclusion: Multilevel determinants contributed to EBP mis-implementation in FQHCs, limiting the ability of these health systems to benefit from knowledge exchange. To minimise mis-implementation, knowledge exchange strategies should be designed around common, core barriers but also flexible enough to address a variety of site-specific contextual factors, and should be tailored to relevant audiences such as providers, patients, and/or leadership.

Publisher

Bristol University Press

Reference49 articles.

1. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors;Aarons, G.A.,2011

2. ‘Scaling-out’ evidence-based interventions to new populations or new health care delivery systems;Aarons, G.A.,2017

3. Principles of collaborative care,2019

4. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes;Baker, R.,2010

5. Developmental epidemiology;Costello, E.,2016

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3