Commentary: Establishing Scientific Rigor and Excellence in Implementation Science Training to Improve the Deployment of Evidence-Based Mental Health Services.

Real-world challenges continue to impede the dissemination, implementation and sustainment of high-quality, evidence-based practices, resulting in too many individuals not receiving the effective mental health care that they urgently need. The field of implementation science is poised to generate new solutions to address this important public health problem. Training a new generation of researchers in implementation science is one solution. The Implementation Research Institute (IRI) offers one approach to such training. The papers in this series, authored by some of the IRI graduates, illustrate the depth and breadth of the intellectual scope of IRI graduates' contributions to the implementation science field, chronicles important lessons learned, and underscores the IRI's training capacity. This commentary reflects upon the series in terms of a framework and themes that relate to core implementation science principles and to future research that corresponds to the National Institute of Mental Health research priorities and strategic plan.

Developing research and recruitment while fostering stakeholder engagement in a National Institutes of Mental Health-funded Interventions and Practice Research Infrastructure Programs grant for depression.

BACKGROUND: In the context of a National Institutes of Mental Health-funded Interventions and Practice Research Infrastructure Programs (IP-RISP) grant for the treatment of depression, a partnership was developed between a community mental health organization and a team of researchers. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the collaborative process, key challenges, and strategies employed to meet the goals of the first phase of the grant, which included development of a working and sustainable partnership and building capacity for recruitment and research. METHODS: This paper was developed through the use of qualitative interviews and discussion with a variety of IP-RISP partners. LESSONS LEARNED: Communication with multiple stakeholders through varied channels, feedback from stakeholders on research procedures, and employing a research liaison at the clinic have been key strategies in the first phase of the grant. CONCLUSION: The strategies we employed allowed multiple stakeholders to contribute to the larger mission of the IP-RISP and helped to establish an ongoing research program within the mental health organization.

Sun-downing and integration for the advancement of science and therapeutics: the National Institute on Substance Use Disorders (NISUD).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the most prominent funding source for scientific research in the world. It is also a complex and diverse organization, having multiple institutes, centers and offices. NIH emphasizes the need for innovation and collaboration in research to discover critical knowledge, enhance health and prevent disease. Advancement in science requires not only sophisticated methods, but also logical organization. Here, an overview of 'behavioral research' (writ large) at NIH is presented, focusing upon the common trinity of 'alcohol, tobacco/nicotine and other drugs' and programmatic overlap across entities. Consideration is also given to the origins of institutes and their historical movement across organizational boundaries. Specific issues, concerns and advantages of integration of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse are addressed. It is concluded that advances in understanding, treating and preventing substance use disorders would best be served by (1)review and integration of all related research throughout NIH, (2) logical placement of leadership for this activity in a single institute, here entitled the National Institute on Substance Use Disorders, and (3) close collaboration of this institute with its complementary partner, the National Institute on Mental Health. Thus, NIH can establish an organizational structure and collaborations reflecting the realities of the scientific and disease/health domains. This would make a prominent statement to the world scientific and health communities regarding NIH recognition of the need for innovation (scientific and organizational) and focus upon these myriad interrelated and costly problems.

New paradigms for treatment development.

Wayne Fenton believed that government-particularly National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-could play a critical role in addressing important public health problems where the current system of treatment development was inadequate. Earlier experiences in HIV/AIDS convinced him and others that the NIMH can effectively facilitate the rapid development of new research in critical areas. This report will demonstrate how the work of Fenton and others brought together representatives from industry, government, and academia to address issues that included new preclinical approaches to drug development and defining new therapeutic targets in schizophrenia. An initiative to facilitate the development of new pharmacological agents to address the cognitive impairments in schizophrenia-titled Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophreniaor MATRICS-is used as an example of a new paradigm for treatment development.

NIMH during the tenure of Director Herbert Pardes, M.D. (1978-1984): The President's Commission on Mental Health and the reemergence of NIMH's scientific mission.

To summarize these 5-1/2 years, I would offer the following. NIMH--which, like the mental health field in general, has focused principally on services and broad social issues in the 1960s and 1970s--was modified to be a more scientific institute focused on basic biology and behavioral science, major clinical disorders, diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology. NIMH in its entirety regained a high level of respect in the general NIH community and won increasing support from Congress and the Administration. Increasingly positive perceptions of NIMH may have had a positive effect on the recruitment issue in psychiatry; the numbers of U.S. recruits started to turn back upward. After the early assault by the OMB and the Reagan Administration on the NIMH budget, the year 1982 and 1983 led to a more supportive attitude, and so the threat to the vitality of NIMH and to its overall fiscal support relented. Programs in research training and mental health clinical training and the intramural program were sustained along with the preeminent focus on building extramural support. We recognized that support of the intramural program accounted for an unduly high proportion of overall NIMH research expenditures. In response, we set firm policies designed to build the extramural program while maintaining the strength of the intramural program without expanding it. I might note parenthetically that I had the opportunity to chair an Intramural Research Program Planning Committee convened by NIMH. Without anticipating Dr. Hyman's comments regarding this effort, I will say that we found the intramural research program to be a national resource that, with continued emphasis on scientific quality, should contribute greatly to the nation's mental health and scientific goals in the years ahead. Perhaps in the most global terms the era can be remembered as one in which NIMH shifted toward becoming a predominantly research institute with related education programs. On the one hand, we drew some limits regarding what was considered the purview of NIMH, and we focused much more on illness. On the other hand, we retained much of the richness of NIMH and its focus on the relationships between various disciplines, while catalyzing the extraordinary explosion of the capacity to understand brain and behavior and thereby bring greater promise to the effort to control psychiatric disorders. The excitement of the research and the greater enthusiasm of the government, along with NIMH's encouragement of citizen group activity, contributed to destigmatization and set the groundwork for a much stronger overall advocacy effort on behalf of NIMH, which has continued over the last 10 to 15 years. Simultaneously, attempts were made to secure more data regarding the usefulness of psychiatric treatments and their effectiveness. This too would serve us well in terms of a more favorable attitude toward improving insurance through Medicare and through other areas of mental health care reimbursement. It is an honor to have worked at NIMH. The staff members there are superb, and I want to express my thanks to them. The dedication of outstanding federal leaders is one of the powerful assets of this nation and has been central to the many accomplishments of NIMH.

National Institute of Mental Health: an update on women and minorities in research.

Guidelines for the recruitment and retention of women and minorities as subjects in clinical trials have been developed at the National Institutes of Health. Training more women and minority investigators is also a National Institutes of Health priority. These individuals, like all other applicants, however, must be sophisticated consumers of the federal grants process. This article present information about administration changes for entry-level research awards to help potential applicants understand the funding process.

Mental health services system research: the National Institute of Mental Health program.

There is a critical need for research to examine the changing mental health services system, to evaluate major innovations in the provision of mental health treatment, and to remove existing barriers to comprehensive and cost-effective care. To achieve these aims, collaboration is needed among government agencies, mental health services programs, academic institutions, and the private sector. The National Institute of Mental Health supports research and research training on the mental health services system primarily through the Division of Biometry and Applied Sciences. This article focuses on the division's three priority research areas of the mental health services system: the provision of mental health care in the primary care sector, the organization and delivery of care for the chronically mentally ill, and financing and reimbursement of care. The various mechanisms of research support are also highlighted.