Delineation of blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) nursery habitats in the north-western Gulf of Mexico.

Coevolution with predators leads to the use of low-risk habitats by many prey species, which promotes survival during early developmental phases. These nurseries are valued by conservation and management agencies because of their contributions to adult populations. However, the physical and geographic characteristics, like shallow depths and isolation from other marine habitats, that restrict access to predators and thereby reduce risk to juvenile animals can also limit scientific research. Consequently, many nursery habitats are still unidentified and understudied. Here we used gillnet monitoring from 1982 to 2018 to delineate blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) nurseries in the north-western Gulf of Mexico and elucidated their physical, environmental and biological characteristics. Nursery habitats within estuaries (<2% of spatial area) were proximate to the Gulf of Mexico and exhibited significantly lower variability in salinity than non-nurseries. However, relative abundances of predators and prey were not significant delineators of nursery habitats. As such, food and risk may not influence juvenile blacktip habitat use as expected. Alternatively, reduced osmoregulatory stress attributed to predictable environments likely provides advantageous conditions for blacktips to develop foraging and antipredator tactics, which is vital prior to the winter migration of juvenile sharks into the Gulf of Mexico.

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.

Measuring collaboration across children's behavioral health and child welfare systems.

A commonly emphasized component of trauma-informed care is the practice of building cross-system collaboration (CSC). While existing research on CSC states numerous benefits and barriers associated with increasing collaboration between systems, there is limited empirical understanding on how to define and measure collaboration between county systems of care. The current study presents the psychometric evaluation of scores from the Perceptions of Overarching Cross-System Collaboration-Child Welfare and Behavioral Health Systems (POCSC-CW/BH), a 6-item self-report instrument completed by system administrative leadership and direct service providers, administered within child welfare and children's behavioral health systems in 6 California counties. Psychometric analysis demonstrated good support of internal consistency, as well as the factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity of scores produced by the tool. There was also evidence for content validity. System-level analyses showed within-county child welfare, and children's behavioral health system staff reported similar perceptions of CSC in 5 of 6 counties, whereas POCSC-CW/BH scores across counties showed variability. Exploratory results revealed CSC scores varied by staff role in each system. In general, the POCSC-CW/BH is a promising instrument that adds to a limited array of practical empirically supported measurement tools for measuring CSC between child welfare and children's behavior health systems. The study limitations and implications for CSC measurement and trauma-informed practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).