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.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) programs for depressed primary care patients can improve health outcomes for 6 to 28 months; effects for longer than 28 months are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess how QI for depression affects health outcomes, quality of care, and health outcome disparities at 57-month follow-up. DESIGN: A group-level randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-six primary care practices in 6 managed care organizations. PATIENTS: Of 1356 primary care patients who screened positive for depression and enrolled in the trial, 991 (73%, including 451 Latinos and African Americans) completed 57-month telephone follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Clinics were randomly assigned to usual care or to 1 of 2 QI programs supporting QI teams, provider training, nurse assessment, and patient education, plus resources to support medication management (QI-meds) or psychotherapy (QI-therapy) for 6 to 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probable depressive disorder in the previous 6 months, mental health-related quality of life in the previous 30 days, primary care or mental health specialty visits, counseling or antidepressant medications in the previous 6 months, and unmet need, defined as depressed but not receiving appropriate care. RESULTS: Combined QI-meds and QI-therapy, relative to usual care, reduced the percentage of participants with probable disorder at 5 years by 6.6 percentage points (P = .04). QI-therapy improved health outcomes and reduced unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans combined but provided few long-term benefits among whites, reducing outcome disparities related to usual care (P = .04 for QI-ethnicity interaction for probable depressive disorder). CONCLUSIONS: Programs for QI for depressed primary care patients implemented by managed care practices can improve health outcomes 5 years after implementation and reduce health outcome disparities by markedly improving health outcomes and unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans relative to whites; thus, equity was improved in the long run.

CONTEXT: Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but treatment rates in primary care are low. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of 2 quality improvement (QI) interventions to improve treatment of depression in primary care and their effects on patient employment. DESIGN: Group-level randomized controlled trial conducted June 1996 to July 1999. SETTING: Forty-six primary care clinics in 6 community-based managed care organizations. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians and 1356 patients with positive screening results for current depression. INTERVENTIONS: Matched practices were randomly assigned to provide usual care (n = 443 patients) or to 1 of 2 QI interventions offering training to practice leaders and nurses, enhanced educational and assessment resources, and either nurses for medication follow-up (QI-meds; n = 424 patients) or trained local psychotherapists (QI-therapy; n = 489). Practices could flexibly implement the interventions, which did not assign type of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total health care costs, costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), days with depression burden, and employment over 24 months, compared between usual care and the 2 interventions. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, average health care costs increased $419 (11%) in QI-meds (P = .35) and $485 (13%) in QI-therapy (P = .28); estimated costs per QALY gained were between $15 331 and $36 467 for QI-meds and $9478 and $21 478 for QI-therapy; and patients had 25 (P = .19) and 47 (P = .01) fewer days with depression burden and were employed 17.9 (P = .07) and 20.9 (P = .03) more days during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Societal cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated QI efforts for depression is comparable with that of accepted medical interventions. The intervention effects on employment may be of particular interest to employers and other stakeholders.