Health systems in the United States have an acute need to better understand how they can most effectively implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) to improve care for their patients. Although the definition can vary, EBPs are clinical interventions that have been tested through research andshown to improve patient outcomes. Research has shown that successfully getting EBP into routine care can require implementation strategies, defined as "methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of a clinical program or practice." Many such strategies have been developed and tested, but much of the evidence for these strategies has focused on a given clinical setting or on a particular strategy. However,implementation strategies are intended to be applied across a wide range of EBPs. Thus, without a comprehensive synthesis across settings and strategies, it is difficult to understand the evidence in a broad context. This level of understanding is necessary for practitioners and others seeking to navigate the evidence across the full array of strategies to inform their choices. Therefore, this project sought to answer the following questions: 1. What is the quantitative evidence for the effectiveness of various implementation strategies to improve health, alone or in combination with other strategies? 2. What are the current gaps in the quantitative evidence for implementation strategy effectiveness? Read More Subscribe to the Policy Currents newsletter Email Subscribe Related Content ResearchEvidence on the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies: A Visual ToolJul 26, 2024 ResearchEvidence on the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies to Promote Evidence-Based Practices: Brief SummaryAug 1, 2024 Topics Biomedical ResearchEvidence Based Health Practice Document Details Document Details Copyright: Public DomainPublisher: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)Availability: Non-RAND Year: 2023 Pages: 126 Document Number: EP-70493 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.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has placed health care workers at unprecedented risk of stress, burnout, and moral injury. This paper describes the design of an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of Stress First Aid (SFA) to Usual Care (UC) in protecting the well-being of frontline health care workers. Methods We plan to recruit a diverse set of hospitals and health centers (eight matched pairs of hospitals and six pairs of centers), with a goal of approximately 50 HCW per health center and 170 per hospital. Participating sites in each pair are randomly assigned to SFA or UC (i.e., whatever psychosocial support is currently being received by HCW). Each site identified a leader to provide organizational support of the study; SFA sites also identified at least one champion to be trained in the intervention. Using a "train the trainer" model, champions in turn trained their peers in selected HCW teams or units to implement SFA over an eight-week period. We surveyed HCW before and after the implementation period. The primary outcomes are posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychological distress; secondary outcomes include depression and anxiety symptoms, sleep problems, social functioning problems, burnout, moral distress, and resilience. In addition, through in-depth qualitative interviews with leaders, champions, and HCW, we assessed the implementation of SFA, including acceptability, feasibility, and uptake. Discussion Results from this study will provide initial evidence for the application of SFA to support HCW well-being during a pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed health care workers at unprecedented risk of stress, burnout, and moral injury. This paper describes the design of an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of Stress First Aid (SFA) to Usual Care (UC) in protecting the well-being of frontline health care workers.,We plan to recruit a diverse set of hospitals and health centers (eight matched pairs of hospitals and six pairs of centers), with a goal of approximately 50 HCW per health center and 170 per hospital. Participating sites in each pair are randomly assigned to SFA or UC (i.e., whatever psychosocial support is currently being received by HCW). Each site identified a leader to provide organizational support of the study; SFA sites also identified at least one champion to be trained in the intervention. Using a "train the trainer" model, champions in turn trained their peers in selected HCW teams or units to implement SFA over an eight-week period. We surveyed HCW before and after the implementation period. The primary outcomes are posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychological distress; secondary outcomes include depression and anxiety symptoms, sleep problems, social functioning problems, burnout, moral distress, and resilience. In addition, through in-depth qualitative interviews with leaders, champions, and HCW, we assessed the implementation of SFA, including acceptability, feasibility, and uptake.,Results from this study will provide initial evidence for the application of SFA to support HCW well-being during a pandemic.