Advertisement

Methods to Improve the Selection and Tailoring of Implementation Strategies

  • Byron J. PowellEmail author
  • Rinad S. Beidas
  • Cara C. Lewis
  • Gregory A. Aarons
  • J. Curtis McMillen
  • Enola K. Proctor
  • David S. Mandell
Article

Abstract

Implementing behavioral health interventions is a complicated process. It has been suggested that implementation strategies should be selected and tailored to address the contextual needs of a given change effort; however, there is limited guidance as to how to do this. This article proposes four methods (concept mapping, group model building, conjoint analysis, and intervention mapping) that could be used to match implementation strategies to identified barriers and facilitators for a particular evidence-based practice or process change being implemented in a given setting. Each method is reviewed, examples of their use are provided, and their strengths and weaknesses are discussed. The discussion includes suggestions for future research pertaining to implementation strategies and highlights these methods’ relevance to behavioral health services and research.

Keywords

Behavioral Health Implementation Strategy Concept Mapping Discrete Strategy Conjoint Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (F31MH098478 to BJP; K23MH099179 to RSB; R01MH103310 and R01MH106510 to CCL; R01MH092950 and R01MH072961 to GAA; R25MH080916, P30DK092950, U54CA155496; UL1RR024992 to EKP; and R01MH106175 to DSM) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (through a Fellowship for the Advancement of Child Well-Being to BJP). Additionally, the preparation of this article was supported in part by the Implementation Research Institute (IRI; NIMH R25MH080916). Drs. Aarons & Proctor are IRI faculty; Dr. Beidas was an IRI fellow from 2012 to 2014.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implementation Science. 2006; 1(1): 1–3. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institutes of Health. Dissemination and implementation research in health (R01). 2013. Available online at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-13-055.html. Accessed January 30, 2013
  3. 3.
    Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science. 2013; 8(139): 1–11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mittman BS. Implementation science in health care. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor, EK (Eds). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: pp. 400–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012; 69(2): 123–157. doi: 10.1177/1077558711430690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science. 2015; 10(21): 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2013; 46(1): 81–95. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, et al. Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): Protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Science. 2014; 9(39): 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-39.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Available online at: http://epoc.cochrane.org. Accessed April 15, 2013.
  10. 10.
    Landsverk J, Brown CH, Rolls Reutz J, et al. Design elements in implementation research: A structured review of child welfare and child mental health studies. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011; 38(1): 54–63. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0315-y.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Novins DK, Green AE, Legha RK, et al. Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices for child and adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2013; 52(10): 1009–1025. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2013.07.012.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Research on Social Work Practice. 2014; 24(2): 192–212. doi: 10.1177/1049731513505778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beidas RS, Kendall PC. Training therapists in evidence-based practice: A critical review of studies from a systems-contextual perspective. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2010; 17(1): 1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01187.x.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, et al. Bridging research and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2012; 43(3): 337–350. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aarons GA, Wells RS, Zagursky K, et al. Implementing evidence-based practice in community mental health agencies: A multiple stakeholder analysis. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99(11): 2087–2095. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.161711.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damschroder LJ, Lowery JC. Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Implementation Science. 2013; 8(51): 1–17. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-51.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Couineau A-L, Forbes D. Using predictive models of behavior change to promote evidence based treatment for PTSD. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2013; 3(3): 266–275. doi: 10.1037/a0024980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    French SD, Green SE, O’Connor DA, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implementation Science. 2012; 7(38): 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implementation Science. 2010; 5(14): 1–6. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-14.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kessler RS, Purcell EP, Glasgow RE, et al. What does it mean to “employ” the RE-AIM model? Evaluation & the Health Professions. 2012; 36(1): 44–66. doi: 10.1177/0163278712446066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bhattacharyya O, Reeves S, Garfinkel S, et al. Designing theoretically informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed. Implementation Science. 2006; 1(5): 1–3. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Proctor EK, Powell BJ, Baumann AA, et al. Writing implementation research grant proposals: Ten key ingredients. Implementation Science. 2012; 7(96): 1–13. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-96.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheirer MA. Linking sustainability research to intervention types. American Journal of Public Health. 2013; 103(4): e73-e80. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300976.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abrahams IA, Ali O, Davidson L, et al. Philadelphia Behavioral Health Services Transformation: Practice Guidelines for Recovery and Resilience Oriented Treatment. Vol I.I. Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse Publishers; 2013. Available online at: http://www.dbhids.org/assets/Forms--Documents/transformation/PracticeGuidelines2013.pdf.
  25. 25.
    Isett KR, Burnam MA, Coleman-Beattie B, et al. The state policy context of implementation issues for evidence-based practices in mental health. Psychiatric Services. 2007; 58(7): 914–921. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.7.914.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cabassa LJ, Baumann AA. A two-way street: Bridging implementation science and cultural adaptations of mental health treatments. Implementation Science. 2013; 8(90): 1–14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-90.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009; 4(50): 1–15.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aarons GA, Cafri G, Lugo L, et al. Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: The Evidence Based Attitudes Scale-50. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2012; 39(5): 331–340. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0302-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glisson C, Landsverk J, Schoenwald S, et al. Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2008; 35(1–2): 98–113. doi: 10.1007/s10488-007-0148-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jacobs SR, Weiner BJ, Bunger AC. Context matters: Measuring implementation climate among individuals and groups. Implementation Science. 2014; 9(46): 1–14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-46.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ganju V. Implementation of evidence-based practices in state mental health systems: Implications for research and effectiveness studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2003; 29(1): 125–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raghavan R, Bright CL, Shadoin AL. Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implementation Science. 2008; 3(26): 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-26.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baker R, Cammosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010; 3 Art. No.: CD005470:1–77. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub2.
  34. 34.
    Wensing M, Oxman A, Baker R, et al. Tailored implementation for chronic diseases (TICD): A project protocol. Implementation Science. 2011; 6(103): 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-103.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R. Selecting, tailoring, and implementing knowledge translation interventions. In: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID (Eds). Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009: pp. 94–113.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grol R, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJ, et al. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: The use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Quarterly. 2007; 85(1): 93–138. doi: 10.1111/j.14680009.2007.00478.x.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implementation Science. 2013; 8(35): 1–11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-35.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wensing M, Grol R. Methods to identify implementation problems. In: Grol R, Wensing M,: Eccles M (Eds). Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Clinical Practice. Edinburgh, Ireland: Elsevier; 2005: pp. 109–120.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grol R, Bosch M, Wensing M. Development and selection of strategies for improving patient care. In: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, Davis D (Eds). Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care. Vol 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013: pp. 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bosch M, van der Weijden T, Wensing M, et al. Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: A multiple case analysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2007; 13: 161–168. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00660.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Green AE, Fettes DL, Aarons GA. A concept mapping approach to guide and understand dissemination and implementation. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2012; 39(4): 362–373. doi: 10.1007/s11414-012-9291-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kane M, Trochim WMK. Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vennix JAM. Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review. 1999; 15(4): 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vennix JAM. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning. Chichester: Wiley; 1996.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, van Mullekom T. Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review. 2002; 18(1): 4–45. doi: 10.1002/sdr.229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Farley K, Thompson C, Hanbury A, et al. Exploring the feasibility of conjoint analysis as a tool for prioritizing innovations for implementation. Implementation Science. 2013; 8(56): 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-56.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bartholemew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, et al. Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.; 2011.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Concept Systems Global, Inc. Concept Systems Global, Inc. 2015. Available online at: http://www.conceptsystems.com. Accessed March 9, 2015.
  49. 49.
    Concept Systems, Inc. Publications in concept mapping methodology. Concept Systems Inc., 2013. Available online at: http://www.conceptsystems.com/content/view/publications.html. Accessed July 15, 2013.
  50. 50.
    Lobb R, Pinto AD, Lofters A. Using concept mapping in the knowledge-to-action process to compare stakeholder opinions on barriers to use of cancer screening among South Asians. Implementation Science. 2013; 8(37): 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-37.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shern D, Trochim W, Christina L. The use of concept mapping for assessing fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1995; 18(2): 143–153. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0149-7189(95)00005-V.
  52. 52.
    Vinson CA. Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework for creating virtual communities of practice to translate cancer research into practice. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy. 2014; 11: e68. doi: 10.5888/pcd11.130280.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Green AE, Aarons GA. A comparison of policy and direct practice stakeholder perceptions of factors affecting evidence-based practice implementation using concept mapping. Implementation Science. 2011; 6(104): 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-104.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM. Group model building. In: Meyers RA (Ed). Complex Systems in Finance and Econometrics. New York: Springer; 2011: pp. 484–496.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Richardson GP, Anderson DF. Teamwork in group model-building. System Dynamics Review. 1995; 11(2): 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hovmand PS, Gillespie DF. Implementation of evidence-based practice and organizational performance. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2010; 37(1): 79–94. doi: 10.1007/s11414-008-9154-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hovmand PS. Community Based System Dynamics. New York: Springer; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    System Dynamics Society. System Dynamics Society. 2015. Available online at: http://www.systemdynamics.org. Accessed March 8, 2015.
  59. 59.
    Holmes BJ, Finegood DT, Riley BL, et al. Systems thinking in dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, (Eds). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: pp. 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research. Systems Science. 2014. Available online at: http://obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific_areas/methodology/systems_science/. Accessed October 12, 2014.
  61. 61.
    Huz S, Anderson DF, Richardson GP, et al. A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions: An experimental approach to mental health system change. System Dynamics Review. 1997; 13(2): 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interface. 2001; 31(3): S56-S73. doi: 10.1287/inte.31.3s.56.9676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sawtooth Software. What is conjoint analysis? Sawtooth Software. 2014. Available online at: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/products/conjoint-choice-analysis/conjoint-analysissoftware. Accessed October 9, 2014.
  64. 64.
    Orme BK. Which Conjoint Method Should I Use? Sequim, Washington: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2009: 1–7.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Qualtrics. A brief explanation of the types of conjoint analysis. 2014. Available online at: http://www.qualtrics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ConjointAnalysisExp.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2014.
  66. 66.
    Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value in Health. 2011; 14(4): 403–413. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Orme BK. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison, WI: Research Publishers; 2010.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth Software. 2015. Available online at: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com. Accessed March 9, 2015.
  69. 69.
    Cunningham CE, Barwick M, Short K, et al. Modeling the mental health practice change preferences of educators: A discrete-choice conjoint experiment. School Mental Health. 2014; 6(1): 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s12310-013-9110-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Orme BK. Menu-Based Choice (MBC) for Multi-Check Choice Experiments. Oren, UT: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2012. Available online at: http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/mbcbooklet.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2015.
  71. 71.
    Johnson RB, Orme B, Pinnell J. Simulating market preference with “build your own” data. In: Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings. Delray Beach, FL; 2006: 239–253.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG). Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006; 1(4): 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-4.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Gottlieb NH. Intervention Mapping: Designing Theory and Evidence-Based Health Promotion Programs. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield; 2001.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G. Intervention mapping: A process for developing theory and evidence-based health education programs. Health Education & Behavior. 1998; 25(5): 545–563. doi: 10.1177/109019819802500502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schaafsma D, Stoffelen JMT, Kok G, et al. Exploring the development of existing sex education programmes for people with intellectual disabilities: An intervention mapping approach. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2013; 26(2): 157–166. doi: 10.1111/jar.12017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Belansky ES, Cutforth N, Chavez R, et al. Adapted intervention mapping: A strategic planning process for increasing physical activity and healthy eating opportunities in schools via environment and policy change. Journal of School Health. 2013; 83(3): 194–205. doi: 10.1111/josh.12015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fernández, ME, Gonzales A, Tortolero-Luna G, et al. Using intervention mapping to develop a breast and cervical cancer screening program for hispanic farmworkers: Cultivando la salud. Health Promotion Practice. 2005; 6(4): 394–404. doi: 10.1177/1524839905278810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mani H, Daly H, Barnett J, et al. The development of a structured education programme to improve cardiovascular risk in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (SUCCESS Study). Endocrine Abstracts. 2013; 31: 228. doi: 10.1530/endoabs.31.P228.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jabbour M, Curran J, Scott SD, et al. Best strategies to implement clinical pathways in an emergency department setting: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Implementation Science. 2013; 8(55): 1–11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-55.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zwerver F, Schellart AJM, Anema JR, et al. Intervention mapping for the development of a strategy to implement the insurance medicine guidelines for depression. BMC Health Services Research. 2011; 11(9): 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-9.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zwerver F, Schellart AJM, Knol DL, et al. An implementation strategy to improve the guideline adherence of insurance physicians: An experiment in a controlled setting. Implementation Science. 2011; 6(131): 1–10. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-131.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Chambers DA, Azrin ST. Partnership: A fundamental component of dissemination and implementation research. Psychiatric Services. 2013; 64(16): 509–511. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300032.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Institute of Medicine. The State of Quality Improvement and Implementation Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Beidas RS, Edmunds JM, Marcus SC, et al. Training and consultation to promote implementation of an empirically supported treatment: A randomized trial. Psychiatric Services. 2012; 63(7): 660–665. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100401.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Herschell AD, Kolko DJ, Baumann BL, et al. The role of therapist training in the implementation of psychosocial treatments: A review and critique with recommendations. Clinical Psychology Review. 2010; 30(4): 448–466. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.02.005.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons GA, et al. Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2009; 36(1): 24–34. doi: 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Waxmonsky J, Kilbourne AM, Goodrich DE, et al. Enhanced fidelity to treatment for bipolar disorder: Results from a randomized controlled implementation trial. Psychiatry Services. 2014; 65(1): 81–90. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Proctor EK, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011; 38(2): 65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Raghavan R. The role of economic evaluation in dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK (Eds). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: pp. 94–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Scott K, Lewis CC. Using measurement-based care to enhance any treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 2015; 22(1): 49–59. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.01.010.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Michie S, Fixsen DL, Grimshaw JM, et al. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implementation Science. 2009; 4(40): 1–6. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-40.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, et al. Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implementation Science. 2013; 8(52): 1–5. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-52.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, et al. Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: Evolution of the SQUIRE project. Quality & Safety in Health Care. 2008; 17(Supplement 1): i3-i9. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2008.029066.
  95. 95.
    Goeschel CA, Weiss WM, Pronovost PJ. Using a logic model to design and evaluate quality and patient safety improvement programs. International Journal of Quality in Health Care. 2012; 24(4): 330–337. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzs029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action. Battle Creek, Michigan: W. K. Kellogg Foundation; 2004.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Baker-Ericzen MJ, Jenkins MM, Haine-Schlagel R. Therapist, parent, and youth perspectives of treatment barriers to family-focused community outpatient mental health services. Journal of Child & Family Studies. 2013; 22(6): 854–868. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9644-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Bartholomew NG, Joe GW, Rowan-Szai GA, et al. Counselor assessments of training and adoption barriers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007; 33(2): 193–199. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.01.005.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Brunette MF, Asher D, Whitley R, et al. Implementation of integrated dual disorders treatment: A qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers. Psychiatric Services. 2008; 59(9): 989–995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Cook JM, Biyanova T, Coyne JC. Barriers to adoption of new treatments: An internet study of practicing community psychotherapists. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2009; 36(2): 83–90. doi: 10.1007/s10488-008-0198-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Forman SG, Olin SS, Hoagwood KE, et al. Evidence-based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health. 2009; 1(1): 26–36. doi: 10.1007/s12310-008-9002-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Langley AK, Nadeem E, Kataoka SH, et al. Evidence-based mental health programs in schools: Barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. School Mental Health. 2010; 2(3): 105–113. doi: 10.1007/s12310-010-9038-1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Pagoto SL, Spring B, Coups EJ, et al. Barriers and facilitators of evidence-based practice perceived by behavioral science health professionals. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2007; 63(7): 695–705. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Powell BJ, Hausmann-Stabile C, McMillen JC. Mental health clinicians’ experiences of implementing evidence-based treatments. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work. 2013; 10(5): 396–409. doi: 10.1080/15433714.2012.664062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Hawley KM, et al. Mental health clinicians’ motivation to invest in training: Results from a practice-based research network survey. Psychiatric Services. 2013; 64(8): 816–818. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.003602012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Raghavan R. Administrative barriers to the adoption of high-quality mental health services for children in foster care: A national study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2007; 34(3): 191–201. doi: 10.1007/s10488-006-0095-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rapp CA, Etzel-Wise D, Marty D, et al. Barriers to evidence-based practice implementation: Results of a qualitative study. Community Mental Health Journal. 2010; 46(2): 112–118. doi: 10.1007/s10597-009-9238-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Shapiro CJ, Prinz RJ, Sanders MR. Facilitators and barriers to implementation of an evidence-based parenting intervention to prevent child maltreatment: The triple p-positive parenting program. Child Maltreatment. 2012; 17(1): 86–95. doi: 10.1177/1077559511424774 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Stein BD, Celedonia KL, Kogan JN, et al. Facilitators and barriers associated with implementation of evidence-based psychotherapy in community settings. Psychiatric Services. 2013; 64(12): 1263–1266. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201200508.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Whitley R, Gingerich S, Lutz WJ, et al. Implementing the illness management and recovery program in community mental health settings: Facilitators and barriers. Psychiatric Services. 2009; 60(2): 202–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011; 38(1): 4–23. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Magnabosco JL. Innovations in mental health services implementation: A report on state level data from the U.S. evidence-based practices project. Implementation Science. 2006; 1(13): 1–11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Behavioral Health 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Byron J. Powell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rinad S. Beidas
    • 2
  • Cara C. Lewis
    • 3
  • Gregory A. Aarons
    • 4
  • J. Curtis McMillen
    • 5
  • Enola K. Proctor
    • 6
  • David S. Mandell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of California-San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  5. 5.School of Social Service AdministrationUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  6. 6.Brown SchoolWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations