Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 260–269 | Cite as

What Gets Noticed: How Barrier and Facilitator Perceptions Relate to the Adoption and Implementation of Innovative Mental Health Practices

Original Paper

Abstract

This mixed-method study examined the facilitators and barriers discussed by 166 informants interviewed from 78 innovative mental health projects. Facilitator and barrier coding reflected two dimensions: the topic of the comment (e.g., funding); and the time phase of the issue’s influence (e.g., pre-decision). Proportions of facilitators to the sum of facilitator and barrier comments made by project informants were calculated. Overall, facilitator proportions were higher for projects that proceeded with implementation than those that did not adopt the practice. In addition, facilitator proportions were generally highest at pre-decision and lowest at full implementation for implementing projects.

Keywords

Evidence-based practice Innovation Facilitator Barrier Risk 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwick, M. A., Boydell, K. M., Stasiulis, E., Ferguson, H. B., Blasé, K., & Fixsen, D. (2005). Knowledge transfer and implementation of evidence-based practices in children’s mental health. Toronto, ON: Children’s Mental Health Ontario.Google Scholar
  3. Blasinsky, M., Goldman, H. H., & Unutzer, J. (2006). Project impact: A report on barriers and facilitators to sustainability. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 718–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiles, J. A., Miller, A. L., Crismon, M. L., Rush, A. J., Krasnoff, A. S., & Shon, S. S. (1999). The Texas medication algorithm project: Development and implementation of the schizophrenia algorithm. Psychiatric Services, 50, 69–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Corrigan, P. W., Steiner, L., McCracken, S. G., Blaser, B., & Barr, M. (2001). Strategies for disseminating evidence-based practices to staff who treat people with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52, 1598–1606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13, 675–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Mangement Journal, 34, 555–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., Shaner, A., Carey, K. B., Minkoff, K., Kola, L., et al. (2001). Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52, 469–476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glisson, C. (2002). The organizational context of children’s mental health services. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 233–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  14. Goldman, H. H., Ganju, V., Drake, R. E., Gorman, P., Hogan, M., Hyde, P. S., et al. (2001). Policy implications for implementing evidence-based practices. Psychiatric Services, 52, 1591–1597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. (1979). Valence in the adoption of solutions by problem-solving groups: Concept, method and results. In L. R. Hoffman’s (Ed.), The group problem solving process: Studies of a valence model (pp. 17–30). New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computer technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 811–824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Level issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1055–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1633–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1986). Taking risks: The management of uncertainty. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mental health: A report of the surgeon general, (1999). Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Public Health Service.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988). Organizational assimilation of innovations: A multilevel contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 897–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  26. Panzano, P. C., & Roth, D. (2006). The decision to adopt evidence-based and other innovative mental health practices: Risky business? Psychiatric Services, 57, 1153–1161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Panzano, P. C., Roth, D., Crane-Ross, D., Massatti, R., & Carstens, C., Seffrin B. A. & Chaney-Jones, S. (2005). The innovation diffusion and adoption research project (IDARP): Moving the diffusion of research results to promoting the adoption of evidence-based innovations in the Ohio mental health system. In D. Roth & W. J. Lutz (Eds.), New Research in Mental Health, 16, 78–89.Google Scholar
  28. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Repenning, N. P. (2002). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation. Organization Science, 13, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenheck, R. A. (2001). Organizational process: A missing link between research and practice. Psychiatric Services, 52, 1607–1612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw’s (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7 (pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rubin, W. V., & Panzano, P. C. (2002). Identifying meaningful subgroups of adults with severe mental disabilities. Psychiatric Services, 53, 452–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seffrin, B. (2007). The views look different from over here. Innovation Diffusion and Adoption Research Project Documents, Bulletin Series. Office of Program Evaluation and Research, Ohio Department of Mental Health. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.mh.state.oh.us/oper/research/idarp/idarp.bulletin.3.pdf.
  35. Taylor, S. E. (1982). The availability bias in social perception and interaction. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky’s (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 190–208). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz’s (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 11 (pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor, S. E., Crocker, J., Fiske, S. T., Sprinzen, M., & Winkler, J. D. (1979). The generalizability of salience effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas, J. B., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (1990). Interpreting strategic issues: Effects of strategy and the information-processing structure of top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 2, 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29, 28–45.Google Scholar
  40. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Support Services, Inc.ColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Office of Program Evaluation and ResearchOhio Department of Mental HealthColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations