BackgroundImplementing 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 ObjectivesWe present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioural health EBPs in US Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).MethodsWe 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.FindingsAcross 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 ConclusionMultilevel 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.

BackgroundImplementing 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 ObjectivesWe present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioural health EBPs in US Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).MethodsWe 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.FindingsAcross 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 ConclusionMultilevel 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. Read More Subscribe to the Policy Currents newsletter Email Subscribe Related Content CLARO Publications Topics Evidence Based Health PracticeHealth BehaviorsHealth Care FacilitiesPrimary Care Document Details Document Details Copyright: Alex R. Dopp, Grace Hindmarch, Karen Chan Osilla, Lisa S. Meredith, Jennifer K. Manuel, Kirsten Becker, Lina Tarhuni, Michael Schoenbaum, Miriam Komaromy, Andrea Cassells, Katherine E. WatkinsPublisher: Policy PressAvailability: Non-RAND Year: 2024 Pages: 21 Document Number: EP-70396 Research conducted by RAND Health Care This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

IntroductionPosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) results in substantial costs to society. Prevalence of PTSD among adults is high, especially among those presenting to primary care settings. Evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for PTSD are available but dissemination and implementation within primary care settings is challenging. Building Experience for Treating Trauma and Enhancing Resilience (BETTER) examines the effectiveness of integrating Written Exposure Therapy (WET) within primary care collaborative care management (CoCM). WET is a brief exposure-based treatment that has the potential to address many challenges of delivering PTSD EBPs within primary care settings.MethodsThe study is a hybrid implementation effectiveness cluster-randomized controlled trial in which 12 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) will be randomized to either CoCM plus WET (CoCM+WET) or CoCM only with 60 patients within each FQHC. The primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of CoCM+WET to improve PTSD and depression symptom severity. Secondary treatment outcomes are mental and physical health functioning. The second study aim is to examine implementation of WET within FQHCs using FQHC process data and staff interviews pre- and post-intervention. Exploratory aims are to examine potential moderators and mediators of the intervention. Assessments occur at baseline, and 3- and 12-month follow-up.ConclusionThe study has the potential to impact practice and improve clinical and public health outcomes. By establishing the effectiveness and feasibility of delivering a brief trauma-focused EBP embedded within CoCM in primary care, the study aims to improve PTSD outcomes for underserved patients.

IntroductionPosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) results in substantial costs to society. Prevalence of PTSD among adults is high, especially among those presenting to primary care settings. Evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for PTSD are available but dissemination and implementation within primary care settings is challenging. Building Experience for Treating Trauma and Enhancing Resilience (BETTER) examines the effectiveness of integrating Written Exposure Therapy (WET) within primary care collaborative care management (CoCM). WET is a brief exposure-based treatment that has the potential to address many challenges of delivering PTSD EBPs within primary care settings.MethodsThe study is a hybrid implementation effectiveness cluster-randomized controlled trial in which 12 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) will be randomized to either CoCM plus WET (CoCM+WET) or CoCM only with 60 patients within each FQHC. The primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of CoCM+WET to improve PTSD and depression symptom severity. Secondary treatment outcomes are mental and physical health functioning. The second study aim is to examine implementation of WET within FQHCs using FQHC process data and staff interviews pre- and post-intervention. Exploratory aims are to examine potential moderators and mediators of the intervention. Assessments occur at baseline, and 3- and 12-month follow-up.ConclusionThe study has the potential to impact practice and improve clinical and public health outcomes. By establishing the effectiveness and feasibility of delivering a brief trauma-focused EBP embedded within CoCM in primary care, the study aims to improve PTSD outcomes for underserved patients. Read More Subscribe to the Policy Currents newsletter Email Subscribe Topics DepressionMental Health TreatmentPosttraumatic Stress DisorderPrimary CareRandomized Controlled TrialRegression Analysis Document Details Document Details Copyright: 兰德公司Publisher: Elsevier IncAvailability: Non-RAND Year: 2024 Pages: 8 Document Number: EP-70352 Research conducted by RAND Health Care This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of collaborative care of mental health problems is clear for depression and growing but mixed for anxiety disorders, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We know little about whether collaborative care can be effective in settings that serve low-income patients such as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness of minimally enhanced usual care (MEU) versus collaborative care for PTSD with a care manager (PCM). DESIGN: This was a multi-site patient randomized controlled trial of PTSD care improvement over 1 year. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited and enrolled 404 patients in six FQHCs from June 2010 to October 2012. Patients were eligible if they had a primary care appointment, no obvious physical or cognitive obstacles to participation, were age 18–65 years, planned to continue care at the study location for 1 year, and met criteria for a past month diagnosis of PTSD. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcomes were PTSD diagnosis and symptom severity (range, 0–136) based on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). Secondary outcomes were medication and counseling for mental health problems, and health-related quality of life assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. KEY RESULTS: Patients in both conditions improved similarly over the 1-year evaluation period. At 12 months, PTSD diagnoses had an absolute decrease of 56.7 % for PCM patients and 60.6 % for MEU patients. PTSD symptoms decreased by 26.8 and 24.2 points, respectively. MEU and PCM patients also did not differ in process of care outcomes or health-related quality of life. Patients who actually engaged in care management had mental health care visits that were 14 % higher (p < 0.01) and mental health medication prescription rates that were 15.2 % higher (p < 0.01) than patients with no engagement. CONCLUSIONS: A minimally enhanced usual care intervention was similarly effective as collaborative care for patients in FQHCs.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common problem in primary care. Although effective treatments are available, little is known about whether such treatments are effective within the context of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that serve as national "safety nets" for providing primary care for low income and underinsured patients. The Violence and Stress Assessment (ViStA) study is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the impact of a care management intervention for treating PTSD in FQHCs. To develop a PTSD management intervention appropriate for lower resource FQHCs and the predominantly Latino patients they serve, formative work was conducted through a collaborative effort between researchers and an FQHC practice-based research network. This article describes how FQHC stakeholders were convened to review, assess, and prioritize evidence-based strategies for addressing patient, clinician, and system-level barriers to care. This multi-component care management intervention incorporates diagnosis with feedback, patient education and activation; navigation and linkage to community resources; clinician education and medication guidance; and structured cross-disciplinary communication and continuity of care, all facilitated by care managers with FQHC experience. We also describe the evaluation design of this five-year RCT and the characteristics of the 404 English or Spanish speaking patients enrolled in the study and randomized to either the intervention or to usual care. Patients are assessed at baseline, six months, and 12 months to examine intervention effectiveness on PTSD, other mental health symptoms, health-related quality-of-life, health care service use; and perceived barriers to care and satisfaction with care.