The impact of reduced routine community mental healthcare on people from minority ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Enduring ethnic inequalities exist in mental healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic has widened these. AIMS: To explore stakeholder perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic has increased ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare. METHOD: A qualitative interview study of four areas in England with 34 patients, 15 carers and 39 mental health professionals from National Health Service (NHS) and community organisations (July 2021 to July 2022). Framework analysis was used to develop a logic model of inter-relationships between pre-pandemic barriers and COVID-19 impacts. RESULTS: Impacts were largely similar across sites, with some small variations (e.g. positive service impacts of higher ethnic diversity in area 2). Pre-pandemic barriers at individual level included mistrust and thus avoidance of services and at a service level included the dominance of a monocultural model, leading to poor communication, disengagement and alienation. During the pandemic remote service delivery, closure of community organisations and media scapegoating exacerbated existing barriers by worsening alienation and communication barriers, fuelling prejudice and division, and increasing mistrust in services. Some minority ethnic patients reported positive developments, experiencing empowerment through self-determination and creative activities. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic some patients showed resilience and developed adaptations that could be nurtured by services. However, there has been a reduction in the availability of group-specific NHS and third-sector services in the community, exacerbating pre-existing barriers. As these developments are likely to have long-term consequences for minority ethnic groups' engagement with mental healthcare, they need to be addressed as a priority by the NHS and its partners.

Creating conditions for effective knowledge brokering: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Process improvement in healthcare is informed by knowledge from the private sector. Skilled individuals may aid the adoption of this knowledge by frontline care delivery workers through knowledge brokering. However, the effectiveness of those who broker knowledge is limited when the context they work within proves unreceptive to their efforts. We therefore need greater insight into the contextual conditions that support individuals to broker process improvement knowledge to the frontline of care delivery, and how policy makers and organizations might generate such conditions. METHODS: Our research took place in a healthcare system within an Australian State. We undertook a qualitative, embedded single case study over the four year period of a process improvement intervention encompassing 57 semi-structured interviews (with knowledge brokers, policy makers, and executive sponsors), 12 focus groups, and 137 h of observation, which included the frontline implementation of actual process improvement initiatives, where knowledge brokering took place. RESULTS: We identified four phases of the process improvement intervention that moved towards a more mature collaboration within which knowledge brokering by improvement advisors began to emerge as effective. In the first phase knowledge brokering was not established. In the second phase, whilst knowledge brokering had been initiated, the knowledge being brokered lacked legitimacy amongst frontline practitioners, resulting in resistance. Only in the fourth and final phase of the intervention did the collective experience of policy makers result in reflections on how they might engender a more receptive context for knowledge brokering. CONCLUSION: We highlight a number of suggested actions that policy makers might consider, if they wish to engender contextual conditions that support knowledge brokering. Policy makers might consider: ensuring they respect local context and experience, by pulling good ideas upward, rather than imposing foreign knowledge from on high; facilitating the lateral diffusion of knowledge by building cultural linkages between people and organizations; strengthening collaboration, not competition, so that trans-organisational flow of ideas might be encouraged; being friend, not foe, to healthcare organizations on their knowledge integration journey. In sum, we suggest that top-down approaches to facilitating the diffusion and adoption of new ideas ought to be reconsidered.

Paragons, Mavericks and Innovators-A typology of orthopaedic surgeons' professional identities. A comparative case study of evidence-based practice.

Clinical guidelines, as vehicles for evidence-based practice (EBP) attempt to standardize health-care practice, reduce variation and increase quality. However, their use for surgery has been contested, and often resisted. This article examines professional responses to EBP in hip replacement surgery using data from case study observations and interviews in three English orthopaedic departments. A professional identity perspective is adopted to explain how standardization through EBP, represents an empirical phenomenon around which surgeons enact their identities as Paragons, Mavericks or Innovators, to enhance legitimacy and stratify themselves in their response to EBP. Attention is drawn to variation between Paragon surgeons working in university (teaching) hospitals and Maverick and Innovator types located in general hospitals, and the ways this interacts with adoption of EBP. The typology shows how practice variation is related to surgeons' tendencies to align to characteristic types, with distinct social processes, power and prestige, and which are in turn influenced by organizational context. The dynamics of EBP and professional identity continues to limit attempts to standardize surgical practice. The typology contributes to the understanding of failures to follow EBP, as associated with the identities individuals create and negotiate, and with identity narratives used to legitimize differing responses to EBP.

Global health and innovation: A panoramic view on health human resources in the COVID-19 pandemic context.

While policy-makers in many jurisdictions are paying increasing attention to health workforce issues, human resources remain at best only partially aligned with population health needs. This paper explores the governance of human resources during the pandemic, looking at the Quebec health system as a revelatory case. We identify three issues related to health human resource (HHR) policies: working conditions, recognition at work and scope of practice. We empirically probe these issues based on an analysis of popular media, policy reports and participant observation by the lead authors in various forums and research projects. Using an integrated model of HHR, we identify major vulnerabilities in this domain. Persistent labour shortages, endemic deficiencies in working environments and inequity across occupational categories limit the ability to address critical HHR issues. We propose three ways to eliminate HHR vulnerabilities: reorganize work through participatory initiatives, implement joint policy making to rebalance power across the health workforce, and invest in the development of capacities at all system levels.

Are external management consultancies effective in healthcare improvement, do they reflect value for money and what are the alternative models?

Despite the increasing use and costs associated with external management consultancy for healthcare improvement, there is a paucity of formal evaluations examining impact. This paper aims to: (i) discuss the potential benefits and disadvantages of external consultancies in addressing complex healthcare challenges and delivering healthcare improvement in Australia; and (ii) explore potential alternative models, including internal consultancy and hybrid models delivered through platforms of collaborative expertise. We propose that the substantive reliance on high cost external management consultancies without demonstrating value or benefit, is unsustainable. An integrative approach that embeds research and capacity building within healthcare services may be of value.

Incorporating patient partner scores into high stakes assessment: an observational study into opinions and attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Volunteer patients (also known as patient partners (PPs)) play a vital role in undergraduate healthcare curricula. They frequently take part in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) and rate aspects of students' performance. However, the inclusion and weighting of PP marks varies, while attitudes and opinions regarding how (and if) they should contribute towards the pass/fail outcome are uncertain. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted to explore beliefs of PPs regarding inclusion of their scores in a high stakes undergraduate OSCE in a single UK medical school. All PPs delivering components of the local MBChB curriculum were asked to participate in the questionnaire study. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and framework analysis respectively. RESULTS: Fifty out of 160 (31% response rate) PPs completed the questionnaire; 70% had participated in a final year OSCE. Thirty (60%) felt their marks should be incorporated into a student's overall score, while 28% were uncertain. The main reasons for inclusion were recognition of the patient perspective (31%) and their ability to assess attitudes and professionalism (27%), while reasons against inclusion included lack of PP qualification/training (18%) and concerns relating to consistency (14%). The majority of PPs were uncertain what proportion of the total mark they should contribute, although many felt that 5-10% of the total score was reasonable. Most respondents (70%) felt that globally low PP scores should not result in an automatic fail and many (62%) acknowledged that prior to mark inclusion, further training was required. CONCLUSION: These data show that most respondents considered it reasonable to "formalise their expertise" by contributing marks in the overall assessment of students in a high stakes OSCE, although what proportion they believe this should represent was variable. Some expressed concerns that using marks towards progress decisions may alter PP response patterns. It would therefore seem reasonable to compare outcomes (i.e. pass/fail status) using historical data both incorporating and not incorporating PP marks to evaluate the effects of doing so. Further attention to existing PP training programmes is also required in order to provide clear instruction on how to globally rate students to ensure validity and consistency.

Sequential testing in a high stakes OSCE: Determining number of screening tests.

OBJECTIVE: The sequential objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) is a stand-alone variation of the traditional OSCE whereby all students sit a screening test. Those who pass this initial assessment undergo no further testing while weakly performing students sit an additional (sequential) test to determine their overall pass/fail status. Our aim was to determine outcomes of adopting a sequential OSCE approach using different numbers of screening stations and pass marks. METHOD: We carried out a retrospective, observational study of anonymised databases of two cohorts of student outcomes from the final OSCE examination at the University of Aberdeen Medical School. Data were accessed for students (n = 388) who sat the exam in the years 2013-2014. We used Stata simulate program to compare outcomes - in terms of sensitivity and specificity - across 5000 random selections of 6-14 OSCE stations using random selections of groups of 100 students (with different screening test pass marks) versus those obtained across 15 stations. RESULTS: Across 6-14 stations, the sensitivity was ≥87% in 2013 and ≥84% in 2014 while the specificity ranged from 60% to 100% in both years. Specificity generally increased as the number of screening stations increased (with concomitant narrowing of the 95% confidence interval), while sensitivity varied between 84 and 98%. Similar sensitivities and specificities were found with screening pass marks of +1, +2 and +3 standard errors of measurement (SEM). Eight stations as a screening test appeared to be a reasonable compromise in terms of high sensitivity (88-89%) and specificity (83-86%). CONCLUSION: This research extends current sequential OSCE literature using a novel and robust approach to identify the "ideal" in terms of number of screening stations and pass mark. We discuss the educational and resource implications of our findings and make recommendations for the use of the sequential OSCE in medical education.

Strengthening health systems in low-income countries by enhancing organizational capacities and improving institutions.

BACKGROUND: This paper argues that the global health agenda tends to privilege short-term global interests at the expense of long-term capacity building within national and community health systems. The Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) movement needs to focus on developing the capacity of local organizations and the institutions that influence how such organizations interact with local and international stakeholders. DISCUSSION: While institutions can enable organizations, they too often apply requirements to follow paths that can stifle learning and development. Global health actors have recognized the importance of supporting local organizations in HSS activities. However, this recognition has yet to translate adequately into actual policies to influence funding and practice. While there is not a single approach to HSS that can be uniformly applied to all contexts, several messages emerge from the experience of successful health systems presented in this paper using case studies through a complex adaptive systems lens. Two key messages deserve special attention: the need for donors and recipient organizations to work as equal partners, and the need for strong and diffuse leadership in low-income countries. An increasingly dynamic and interdependent post-Millennium Development Goals (post-MDG) world requires new ways of working to improve global health, underpinned by a complex adaptive systems lens and approaches that build local organizational capacity.

Effectiveness of a mental health literacy module on stigma related mental health knowledge and behaviour among youth in two educational settings in Chennai, South India: A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Improving mental health literacy (MHL) can reduce stigma towards mental illness, decreasing delays in help-seeking for mental disorders such as psychosis. We aimed to develop and assess the impact of an interactive MHL intervention on stigma related mental health knowledge and behaviour (SRMHKB) among youth in two urban colleges in South India. METHODS: Incorporating input from stakeholders (students, teachers, and mental health professionals), we developed a mental health literacy module to address SRMHKB. The module was delivered as an interactive session lasting 90 min. We recruited 600 (300 males; 300 females; mean age 19.6) participants from two city colleges in Chennai from Jan-Dec 2019 to test the MHL module. We assessed SRMHKB before the delivery of the MHL intervention, immediately after, and at 3 and 6 months after the intervention using the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS) and Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS). We used generalised estimating equations (GEE) to assess the impact of the intervention over time. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, there was a statistically significant increase in stigma related knowledge and behaviour immediately after the intervention (coefficient=3.8; 95% CI: 3.5,4.1) and during the 3-month (coefficient=3.4; 95% CI: 3.0,3.7) and 6-month (coefficient=2.4; 95% CI: 2.0,2.7) follow-up. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that a single 90-minute MHL interactive session could lead to improvements in SRMHKB among youth in India. Future research might utilise randomised controlled trials to corroborate findings, and explore how improvements can be sustained over the longer-term.

Protocol-based assessment and management of first episode psychosis: Comparison of short and medium-term outcomes in psychopathology, quality of life, functioning and family burden across two sites in India.

BACKGROUND: Standard assessment and management protocols exist for first episode psychosis (FEP) in high income countries. Due to cultural and resource differences, these need to be modified for application in low-and middle-income countries. AIMS: To assess the applicability of standard assessment and management protocols across two cohorts of FEP patients in North and South India by examining trajectories of psychopathology, functioning, quality of life and family burden in both. METHOD: FEP patients at two sites (108 at AIIMS, North India, and 115 at SCARF, South India) were assessed using structured instruments at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Standard management protocols consisted of treatment with antipsychotics and psychoeducation for patients and their families. Generalised estimating equation (GEE) modelling was carried out to test for changes in outcomes both across and between sites at follow-up. RESULTS: There was an overall significant improvement in both cohorts for psychopathology and other outcome measures. The trajectories of improvement differed between the two sites with steeper improvement in non-affective psychosis in the first three months at SCARF, and affective symptoms in the first three months at AIIMS. The reduction in family burden and improvement in quality of life were greater at AIIMS than at SCARF during the first three months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variations in cultural contexts and norms, it is possible to implement FEP standard assessment and management protocols in North and South India. Preliminary findings indicate that FEP services lead to significant improvements in psychopathology, functioning, quality of life, and family burden within these contexts.

Designing and implementing a physical exercise intervention for people with first episode psychosis using experience-based co-design: A pilot study from Chennai, India.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise can improve outcomes for people with first-episode psychosis (FEP). Co-designing physical exercise interventions with end users has the potential to enhance their acceptability, feasibility, and long-term viability. This study's objective was to use experience-based co-design (EBCD) methodology to develop a physical exercise intervention for FEP, and pilot test it. METHODS: The study was conducted at the Schizophrenia Research Foundation's FEP program in Chennai, India. Participants(N=36) were individuals with FEP and their caregivers, mental health professionals (MHPs, and physical training experts. EBCD methodology included one-to-one interviews, focus group discussions, joint conferences, and co-design workshops. Two instructional videos were developed. Twelve FEP patients engaged in physical exercise with help of the videos over three months. They were followed up through weekly phone calls and in-person interviews to capture data on regularity, frequency, location of exercise, and comfort levels. RESULTS: Several touch points emerged from the interviews, focus groups, and joint meetings including lack of motivation, knowledge about physical exercise; differing perspectives about physical exercise; limited resource, and time constraints. Two instructional videos demonstrating activities for participants incorporated strategies that addressed these touch points. Pilot data indicated that participants engaged with the physical exercise intervention over 3 months. CONCLUSION: This was the first study to use co-design methodology to design a physical exercise intervention for first-episode psychosis. The intervention may have therefore been responsive to stakeholder needs and preferences. Results of this study highlight the potential of co-design in designing and adapting interventions. There is need for rigorous testing with larger samples.

In which context and for whom can interventions improve leadership of surgical trainees, surgeons and surgical teams and why: a realist review protocol.

Background: Improving effective leadership of individuals, groups, and healthcare organisations is essential for improving surgical performance and indirectly improving health outcomes for patients. Numerous systematic reviews have been conducted which seek to determine the effectiveness of specific leadership interventions across a range of disciplines and healthcare outcomes. The purpose of this realist review is to systematically synthesise the literature which examines in which context and for whom leadership interventions improve leadership of surgeons, surgical teams, and trainees. Methods: Several approaches will be used to iteratively search the scientific and grey literature to identify relevant evidence. Selected articles will inform the development of a programme theory that seeks to explain in which context and for whom interventions can improve leadership of surgical trainees, surgeons, and surgical teams. Next, empirical studies will be searched systematically in order to test and, where necessary, refine the theory. Once theoretical saturation has been achieved, recommendations for advancing leadership in surgery will be developed. Stakeholder and patient and public consultations will contribute to the development of the programme theory. The review will be written up according to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards publication standards. No ethical review will be required for the conduct of this realist review. Discussion: The knowledge gained from this review will provide evidence-based guidance for those planning or designing leadership interventions in surgery. The recommendations will help policymakers, educationalists, healthcare providers, and those delivering or planning leadership development programmes across the surgical disciplines to design interventions that are acceptable to the surgical community and successful in improving surgical leadership.PROSPERO registration: CRD42021230709.

How do leadership development activities need to be designed in order to improve the leadership of surgeons, surgical teams and surgical trainees? Leadership is seen to be an important skill for those working in healthcare. Healthcare systems therefore, invest a lot of money into the development of the leadership of surgeons, surgical teams, and surgical trainees. Leadership development activities include leadership courses and programmes, mentoring and coaching, feedback activities, and simulation training. To date there is no agreement on what makes leadership development activities effective or not. We also do not know whether they work for certain people or professionals more than others. It is important to find out what interventions are best, in order to spend money on leadership development effectively. This protocol describes our plan to develop a theory explaining in which context and for whom leadership development activities work and why. We will develop the theory based on the existing literature and through discussions with experts in the field. To make the results more reliable, we will search databases systematically and the different stages of the review will be checked by two people. Results will feed into further research where we collect 'real world' data on leadership development activities that take place in the National Health Service (NHS) and whether they work and why. Our study will also provide guidance for those who are planning or designing leadership development activities for surgeons, surgical teams and surgical trainees.

Advancing leadership in surgery: a realist review of interventions and strategies to promote evidence-based leadership in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems invest in leadership development of surgeons, surgical trainees, and teams. However, there is no agreement on how interventions should be designed, or what components they must contain to be successful. The objective of this realist review was to generate a programme theory explaining in which context and for whom surgical leadership interventions work and why. METHODS: Five databases were systematically searched, and articles screened against inclusion considering their relevance. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and fragments of CMOCs were identified. Gaps in the CMOCs were filled through deliberation with the research team and stakeholder feedback. We identified patterns between CMOCs and causal relationships to create a programme theory. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included and 19 CMOCs were developed. Findings suggests that interventions for surgeons and surgical teams improve leadership if timely feedback is delivered on multiple occasions and by trusted and respected people. Negative feedback is best provided privately. Feedback from senior-to-junior or peer-to-peer should be delivered directly, whereas feedback from junior-to-senior is preferred when delivered anonymously. Leadership interventions were shown to be most effective for those with awareness of the importance of leadership, those with confidence in their technical surgical skills, and those with identified leadership deficits. For interventions to improve leadership in surgery, they need to be delivered in an intimate learning environment, consider implementing a speak-up culture, provide a variety of interactive learning activities, show a genuine investment in the intervention, and be customised to the needs of surgeons. Leadership of surgical teams can be best developed by enabling surgical teams to train together. CONCLUSIONS: The programme theory provides evidence-based guidance for those who are designing, developing and implementing leadership interventions in surgery. Adopting the recommendations will help to ensure interventions are acceptable to the surgical community and successful in improving surgical leadership. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021230709).

Improving mental healthcare access and experience for people from minority ethnic groups: an England-wide multisite experience-based codesign (EBCD) study.

BACKGROUND: Long-standing ethnic inequalities in access and mental healthcare were worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Stakeholders coproduced local and national implementation plans to improve mental healthcare for people from minority ethnic groups. METHODS: Experience-based codesign conducted in four areas covered by National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts: Coventry and Warwickshire, Greater Manchester, East London and Sheffield. Data were analysed using an interpretivist-constructivist approach, seeking validation from participants on their priority actions and implementation plans. Service users (n=29), carers (n=9) and health professionals (n=33) took part in interviews; focus groups (service users, n=15; carers, n=8; health professionals, n=24); and codesign workshops (service users, n=15; carers, n=5; health professionals, n=21) from July 2021 to July 2022. FINDINGS: Each study site identified 2-3 local priority actions. Three were consistent across areas: (1) reaching out to communities and collaborating with third sector organisations; (2) diversifying the mental healthcare offer to provide culturally appropriate therapeutic approaches and (3) enabling open discussions about ethnicity, culture and racism. National priority actions included: (1) co-ordination of a national hub to bring about system level change and (2) recognition of the centrality of service users and communities in the design and provision of services. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder-led implementation plans highlight that substantial change is needed to increase equity in mental healthcare in England. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Working with people with lived experience in leadership roles, and collaborations between NHS and community organisations will be essential. Future research avenues include comparison of the benefits of culturally specific versus generic therapeutic interventions.

Protocol for a cluster randomised waitlist-controlled trial of a goal-based behaviour change intervention for employees in workplaces enrolled in health and wellbeing initiatives.

Many workplaces offer health and wellbeing initiatives to their staff as recommended by international and national health organisations. Despite their potential, the influence of these initiatives on health behaviour appears limited and evaluations of their effectiveness are rare. In this research, we propose evaluating the effectiveness of an established behaviour change intervention in a new workplace context. The intervention, 'mental contrasting plus implementation intentions', supports staff in achieving their health and wellbeing goals by encouraging them to compare the future with the present and to develop a plan for overcoming anticipated obstacles. We conducted a systematic review that identified only three trials of this intervention in workplaces and all of them were conducted within healthcare organisations. Our research will be the first to evaluate the effectiveness of mental contrasting outside a solely healthcare context. We propose including staff from 60 organisations, 30 in the intervention and 30 in a waitlisted control group. The findings will contribute to a better understanding of how to empower and support staff to improve their health and wellbeing. Trial registration: ISRCTN17828539.

Leadership configuration in crises: Lessons from the English response to COVID-19.

Our study examines the empirical case of the political leadership response to Covid-19 in England. It shows that, rather than the ideal configuration of leadership suggested by theory, within which individualistic and collective leadership blend, a less balanced configuration emerged that can be characterised as incoherent. In England, an individual political leader behaved in an authoritarian way, which ignored evidence about how to address Covid-19. So, rather than an individual orchestrating a collective leadership effort to address complex issues, leadership was rendered fragmented and chaotic. We suggest that the English context, characterised by populist tendencies and neoliberal economic policy, shaped the poor leadership response to Covid-19.

Factors that influence the implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in healthcare leadership: A meta-ethnographic study.

Background: Gender inequity in healthcare leadership persists and progress is slow, with the focus firmly on problems, barriers and on requiring women themselves to adapt and compete in a system not designed for them. Women are individually burdened to advance their careers, with little effort given to addressing systemic barriers in the health sector. A recent systematic review prioritised organisational-level approaches and demonstrated effective interventions. In this meta-ethnographic study, we further this work by examining factors in implementation of organisational interventions for advancing women in leadership. Methods: The meta-ethnographic framework applied here follows the Noblit and Hare approach for synthesising findings and applying interpretive analysis to original research. We generated a new line-of-argument with insights for the healthcare sector. The protocol is registered (CRD42020162115) on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Three academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS) were searched systematically between 2000 and 2021. Studies were analysed if they included organisational-level interventions that sought to measurably advance women in leadership. Study characteristics were extracted using a standard template for intervention details. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. Data synthesis was conducted across 19 criteria of the Meta-Ethnography Reporting Guide (eMERGe). Findings: Fifteen qualitative studies were included. Analysis revealed three meta-themes that are central to successful implementation of organisational interventions that advance women in healthcare leadership: (1) leadership commitment and accountability, influenced by internal and external organisational settings, salient for long term outcomes and for developing an inclusive leadership culture; (2) intervention fit with individuals with consideration given to personal beliefs, preferences, experiences, capabilities or life circumstances, including capacity for leadership roles in their broader life context; balanced against maintaining interventional fidelity, and (3) cultural climate and organisational readiness for change, addressing traditional, conservative and constrictive perspectives on gender and leadership in health, highlighting the facilitating role of male colleagues. Interpretation: This meta-ethnographic research extends past work by integrating empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of effective organisational level interventions, with the identification of pragmatic themes to generate, implement, evaluate and embed evidence-based organisational interventions to advance women in healthcare leadership. This work can inform initiatives and policymakers to generate and implement new knowledge to advance women in healthcare leadership. Funding: Epworth Health and Monash University provided scholarships for MM. HT is funded by an NHMRC / MRFF Practitioner Fellowship, JB by an NHMRC fellowship and HS by a Monash Warwick University Professorship.

Using organization theory to position middle-level managers as agents of evidence-based practice implementation.

Middle-level managers (MLMs; i.e., healthcare professionals who may fill roles including obtaining and diffusing information, adapting information and the intervention, mediating between strategy and day-to-day activities, and selling intervention implementation) have been identified as having significant influence on evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation. We argue that understanding whether and how MLMs influence EBP implementation is aided by drawing upon organization theory. Organization theories propose strategies for increasing MLMs' opportunities to facilitate implementation by optimizing their appreciation of constructs which we argue have heretofore been treated separately to the detriment of understanding and facilitating implementation: EBPs, context, and implementation strategies. Specifically, organization theory encourages us to delineate different types of MLMs and consider how generalist and hybrid MLMs make different contributions to EBP implementation. Organization theories also suggest that MLMs' understanding of context allows them to adapt EBPs to promote implementation and effectiveness; MLMs' potential vertical linking pin role may be supported by increasing MLMs' interactions with external environment, helping them to understand strategic pressures and opportunities; and how lateral connections among MLMs have the potential to optimize their contribution to EBP implementation as a collective force. We end with recommendations for practice and future research.