Specifying cross-system collaboration strategies for implementation: a multi-site qualitative study with child welfare and behavioral health organizations.

BACKGROUND: Cross-system interventions that integrate health, behavioral health, and social services can improve client outcomes and expand community impact. Successful implementation of these interventions depends on the extent to which service partners can align frontline services and organizational operations. However, collaboration strategies linking multiple implementation contexts have received limited empirical attention. This study identifies, describes, and specifies multi-level collaboration strategies used during the implementation of Ohio Sobriety Treatment and Reducing Trauma (Ohio START), a cross-system intervention that integrates services across two systems (child welfare and evidence-based behavioral health services) for families that are affected by co-occurring child maltreatment and parental substance use disorders. METHODS: In phase 1, we used a multi-site qualitative design with 17 counties that implemented Ohio START. Qualitative data were gathered from 104 staff from child welfare agencies, behavioral health treatment organizations, and regional behavioral health boards involved in implementation via 48 small group interviews about collaborative approaches to implementation. To examine cross-system collaboration strategies, qualitative data were analyzed using an iterative template approach and content analysis. In phase 2, a 16-member expert panel met to validate and specify the cross-system collaboration strategies identified in the interviews. The panel was comprised of key child welfare and behavioral health partners and scholars. RESULTS: In phase 1, we identified seven cross-system collaboration strategies used for implementation. Three strategies were used to staff the program: (1) contract for expertise, (2) provide joint supervision, and (3) co-locate staff. Two strategies were used to promote service access: (4) referral protocols and (5) expedited access agreements. Two strategies were used to align case plans: (6) shared decision-making meetings, and (7) sharing data. In phase 2, expert panelists specified operational details of the cross-system collaboration strategies, and explained the processes by which strategies were perceived to improve implementation and service system outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a range of cross-system collaboration strategies that show promise for improving staffing, service access, and case planning. Leaders, supervisors, and frontline staff used these strategies during all phases of implementation. These findings lay the foundation for future experimental and quasi-experimental studies that test the effectiveness of cross-system collaboration strategies.

Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Proctor and colleagues' 2011 paper proposed a taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes and challenged the field to address a research agenda focused on conceptualization, measurement, and theory building. Ten years later, this paper maps the field's progress in implementation outcomes research. This scoping review describes how each implementation outcome has been studied, research designs and methods used, and the contexts and settings represented in the current literature. We also describe the role of implementation outcomes in relation to implementation strategies and other outcomes. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews guided our methods. Using forward citation tracing, we identified all literature citing the 2011 paper. We conducted our search in the Web of Science (WOS) database and added citation alerts sent to the first author from the publisher for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. This produced 1346 titles and abstracts. Initial abstract screening yielded 480 manuscripts, and full-text review yielded 400 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria (empirical assessment of at least one implementation outcome). RESULTS: Slightly more than half (52.1%) of included manuscripts examined acceptability. Fidelity (39.3%), feasibility (38.6%), adoption (26.5%), and appropriateness (21.8%) were also commonly examined. Penetration (16.0%), sustainability (15.8%), and cost (7.8%) were less frequently examined. Thirty-two manuscripts examined implementation outcomes not included in the original taxonomy. Most studies took place in healthcare (45.8%) or behavioral health (22.5%) organizations. Two-thirds used observational designs. We found little evidence of progress in testing the relationships between implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, leaving us ill-prepared to know how to achieve implementation success. Moreover, few studies tested the impact of implementation outcomes on other important outcome types, such as service systems and improved individual or population health. CONCLUSIONS: Our review presents a comprehensive snapshot of the research questions being addressed by existing implementation outcomes literature and reveals the need for rigorous, analytic research and tests of strategies for attaining implementation outcomes in the next 10 years of outcomes research.

Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting.

BACKGROUND: Implementation outcomes research spans an exciting mix of fields, disciplines, and geographical space. Although the number of studies that cite the 2011 taxonomy has expanded considerably, the problem of harmony in describing outcomes persists. This paper revisits that problem by focusing on the clarity of reporting outcomes in studies that examine them. Published recommendations for improved reporting and specification have proven to be an important step in enhancing the rigor of implementation research. We articulate reporting problems in the current implementation outcomes literature and describe six practical recommendations that address them. RECOMMENDATIONS: Our first recommendation is to clearly state each implementation outcome and provide a definition that the study will consistently use. This includes providing an explanation if using the taxonomy in a new way or merging terms. Our second recommendation is to specify how each implementation outcome will be analyzed relative to other constructs. Our third recommendation is to specify "the thing" that each implementation outcome will be measured in relation to. This is especially important if you are concurrently studying interventions and strategies, or if you are studying interventions and strategies that have multiple components. Our fourth recommendation is to report who will provide data and the level at which data will be collected for each implementation outcome, and to report what kind of data will be collected and used to assess each implementation outcome. Our fifth recommendation is to state the number of time points and frequency at which each outcome will be measured. Our sixth recommendation is to state the unit of observation and the level of analysis for each implementation outcome. CONCLUSION: This paper advances implementation outcomes research in two ways. First, we illustrate elements of the 2011 research agenda with concrete examples drawn from a wide swath of current literature. Second, we provide six pragmatic recommendations for improved reporting. These recommendations are accompanied by an audit worksheet and a list of exemplar articles that researchers can use when designing, conducting, and assessing implementation outcomes studies.

Associations of warzone veteran mental health with partner mental health and family functioning: Family Foundations Study.

INTRODUCTION: Warzone participation is associated with increased risk of stress-related psychopathology, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Prior research suggests that the mental health of spouses of warzone veterans (WZVs) is linked to that of their partners. Additionally, PTSD among WZVs has been associated with marital dysfunction. Less is known about the effects of depression among WZVs on partner mental health and family relationships. We sought in this study to examine associations between WZV PTSD and depression and partner mental health and relationship outcomes. METHODS: Using a nationally dispersed sample of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their married and unmarried intimate partners, 245 dyads completed structured psychiatric interviews and psychometric surveys assessing family functioning and relationship aggression. RESULTS: Adjusted regression analyses indicated that depression among WZVs was associated with partner depression and anxiety disorders. WZV PTSD and depression were also associated with partner-reported relationship dysfunction, dissatisfaction, and communication issues, and higher rates of intimate partner aggression victimization and perpetration. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health consequences of war extend beyond WZVs to the mental health of their intimate partners and their relationships with intimate partners.

A multimodal approach to emotion recognition ability in autism spectrum disorders.

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are characterised by social and communication difficulties in day-to-day life, including problems in recognising emotions. However, experimental investigations of emotion recognition ability in ASD have been equivocal, hampered by small sample sizes, narrow IQ range and over-focus on the visual modality. METHODS: We tested 99 adolescents (mean age 15;6 years, mean IQ 85) with an ASD and 57 adolescents without an ASD (mean age 15;6 years, mean IQ 88) on a facial emotion recognition task and two vocal emotion recognition tasks (one verbal; one non-verbal). Recognition of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust were tested. Using structural equation modelling, we conceptualised emotion recognition ability as a multimodal construct, measured by the three tasks. We examined how the mean levels of recognition of the six emotions differed by group (ASD vs. non-ASD) and IQ (≥ 80 vs. < 80). RESULTS: We found no evidence of a fundamental emotion recognition deficit in the ASD group and analysis of error patterns suggested that the ASD group were vulnerable to the same pattern of confusions between emotions as the non-ASD group. However, recognition ability was significantly impaired in the ASD group for surprise. IQ had a strong and significant effect on performance for the recognition of all six emotions, with higher IQ adolescents outperforming lower IQ adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: The findings do not suggest a fundamental difficulty with the recognition of basic emotions in adolescents with ASD.

Auditory discrimination and auditory sensory behaviours in autism spectrum disorders.

It has been hypothesised that auditory processing may be enhanced in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We tested auditory discrimination ability in 72 adolescents with ASD (39 childhood autism; 33 other ASD) and 57 IQ and age-matched controls, assessing their capacity for successful discrimination of the frequency, intensity and duration differences in pairs of sounds. At the group level, auditory discrimination ability did not differ between the adolescents with and without ASD. However, we found a subgroup of 20% of individuals in the ASD group who showed 'exceptional' frequency discrimination skills (defined as 1.65 SDs above the control mean) and who were characterised by average intellectual ability and delayed language onset. Auditory sensory behaviours (i.e. behaviours in response to auditory sensory input) are common in ASD and we hypothesised that these would relate to auditory discrimination ability. For the ASD group, poor performers on the intensity discrimination task reported more auditory sensory behaviours associated with coping with loudness levels. Conversely, those who performed well on the duration discrimination task reported more auditory sensory behaviours across the full range measured. Frequency discrimination ability did not associate with auditory sensory behaviours. We therefore conclude that (i) enhanced frequency discrimination is present in around 1 in 5 individuals with ASD and may represent a specific phenotype; and (ii) individual differences in auditory discrimination ability in ASD may influence the expression of auditory sensory behaviours by modulating the degree to which sounds are detected or missed in the environment.