Identifying and Exploring Sustainability Determinants of Mental Health Recovery-Oriented Interventions: A Mixed Methods Study Protocol.

Mental health recovery is the new paradigm in the mental health service delivery system worldwide. Recovery-oriented services go beyond traditional clinical care that is centered on symptom remission, aiming to help people: restore social connections with other individuals and the community; develop hope and optimism for the future; reconstruct an identity beyond that of a "mental patient"; discover meaning in life; and feel empowered to gain control over treatment (CHIME framework). Over the last ten years, several efforts at implementation of recovery-oriented interventions have been documented in the scientific literature. However, little attention has been given to their sustainability, even though it is reported that not all health interventions can fully sustain their activities beyond the initial implementation phase. The aim of this mixed methods case study is to better understand the factors that determine the sustainability of two recovery-oriented interventions (peer support and recovery training) after their roll-out in four organizations in Canada that provide community housing for adults with mental health challenges. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected from managers, service providers, and implementation team members that oversaw the implementation process along with organizational documents. Data collection and analysis will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Sustainability Constructs in Healthcare, the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications, and the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool. Findings will expand our current evidence base on the intersection of sustainability and mental health recovery interventions that remains under-explored.

Translating mental health recovery guidelines into recovery-oriented innovations: A strategy combining implementation teams and a facilitated planning process.

Recovery is the focus of mental health strategies internationally. However, little translation of recovery knowledge has occurred in mental health services. The purpose of this research is to bridge the gap between recovery guidelines and practice by developing a new implementation strategy involving the formation of implementation teams made up of different stakeholders (service users, service providers, managers, knowledge users) and facilitating a 12-meeting implementation planning process. Sevenmental health organizations across Canada successfully completed the process of translating the guidelines into a recovery-oriented innovation that was implemented. Fifty-five implementation team members were interviewed upon completion of the 12-meeting process. Findings indicate that implementation team members perceived the structured planning process as positive. Nevertheless, the language of implementation science remains difficult to understand for a non-academic audience. Key elements of the 12-meeting process included the value of consensus building among implementation team members and the subsequent shifting power relationships. While working with diverse stakeholders came with certain challenges, the process in itself was a form of system transformation. This type of engaged planning process was a significant departure from the more top-down approaches to organizational change that staff were used to.

The impacts of implementing recovery innovations: a conceptual framework grounded in qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: Implementing mental health recovery into services is a policy priority in Canada and globally. To that end, a 5 year study was undertaken with seven organisations providing mental health and housing services to people living with a mental health challenge to implement guidelines for the transformation of services and systems towards a recovery-orientation. Multi-stakeholder implementation teams were established and a facilitated process guided teams to choosing and planning for the implementation of one recovery innovation. The recovery innovations chosen were hiring peer support workers, Wellness Recovery Action Planning (WRAP), a family support group, and staff recovery training. METHODS: This study reports on data collected at the post-implementation stage. 90 service users, service providers, family members, managers, other actors and knowledge users participated in 41 group, individual or dyad semi-structured interviews. The interview guides included open-ended questions eliciting participants' impressions regarding the impact of implementing the innovation on service users, service providers and organisations. We applied a collaborative qualitative content analysis approach in NVivo12 to coding and interpreting the data generated from these questions. RESULTS: Eighteen impacts of implementing recovery innovations from the perspectives of diverse stakeholder groups were identified. Three impacts of working as an implementation team member and as part of a research project were also identified. Impacts were developed into a conceptual framework organised around four overall categories of impact: Ways of being, Ways of interacting, Ways of thinking, and Ways of operating and doing business. CONCLUSIONS: The IMpacts of Recovery Innovations (IMRI) framework version 1 can assist researchers, evaluators and decision-makers identify, explore and understand impact in the context of recovery innovations. The framework helps fill a gap in conceptualising service and organisation-level impacts. Future research is needed to validate the framework and map it to existing methods for studying impact.

Factors influencing the implementation of mental health recovery into services: a systematic mixed studies review.

BACKGROUND: Countries around the world have committed in policy to transforming their mental health services towards a recovery orientation. How has mental health recovery been implemented into services for adults, and what factors influence the implementation of recovery-oriented services? METHODS: This systematic mixed studies review followed a convergent qualitative synthesis design and used the best-fit framework synthesis method. Librarians ran searches in Ovid- MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, Ovid-PsycInfo, EBSCO-CINAHL Plus with Full Text, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion or exclusion using DistillerSR. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods peer-reviewed studies published since 1998 were included if they reported a new effort to transform adult mental health services towards a recovery orientation, and reported findings related to implementation experience, process, or factors. Data was extracted in NVivo12 to the 38 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The synthesis included a within-case and a cross-case thematic analysis of data coded to each CFIR construct. Cases were types of recovery-oriented innovations. RESULTS: Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria. These were grouped into seven types of recovery-oriented innovations (cases) for within-case and cross-case synthesis. Themes illustrating common implementation factors across innovations are presented by CFIR domain: Intervention Characteristics (flexibility, relationship building, lived experience); Inner Setting (traditional biomedical vs. recovery-oriented approach, the importance of organizational and policy commitment to recovery-transformation, staff turnover, lack of resources to support personal recovery goals, information gaps about new roles and procedures, interpersonal relationships), Characteristics of Individuals (variability in knowledge about recovery, characteristics of recovery-oriented service providers); Process (the importance of planning, early and continuous engagement with stakeholders). Very little data from included studies was extracted to the outer setting domain, and therefore, we present only some initial observations and note that further research on outer setting implementation factors is needed. CONCLUSION: The CFIR required some adaptation for use as an implementation framework in this review. The common implementation factors presented are an important starting point for stakeholders to consider when implementing recovery-oriented services.

The CFIR Card Game: a new approach for working with implementation teams to identify challenges and strategies.

BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies are key resources for identifying implementation barriers and strategies. However, their respective density and complexity make their application to implementation planning outside of academia challenging. We developed the CFIR Card Game as a way of working with multi-stakeholder implementation teams that were implementing mental health recovery into their services, to identify barriers and strategies to overcome them. The aim of this descriptive evaluation is to describe how the game was prepared, played, used and received by teams and researchers and their perception of the clarity of the CFIR constructs. METHODS: We used the new CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool v.1 to design the game. We produced a deck of cards with each of the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool barrier narratives representing all 39 CFIR constructs. Teams played the game at the pre-implementation stage at a time when they were actively engaged in a planning process for implementing their selected recovery-oriented innovation. The teams placed each card in either the YES or NO column of the board in response to whether they anticipated experiencing this barrier in their setting. Teams were also asked about the clarity of the barrier narratives and were provided with plain language versions if unclear. Researchers completed a reflection form following the game, and participants completed an open-added questionnaire that included questions specific to the CFIR Card Game. We applied a descriptive coding approach to analysis. RESULTS: Four descriptive themes emerged from this analysis: (1) the CFIR Card Game as a useful and engaging process, (2) difficulties understanding CFIR construct barrier narratives, (3) strengths of the game's design and structure and room for improvement and (4) mediating factors: facilitator preparation and multi-stakeholder dynamics. Quantitative findings regarding the clarity of the barrier narratives were integrated with qualitative data under theme 2. Only seven of the 39 original barrier narratives were judged to be clear by all teams. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR Card Game can be used to enhance implementation planning. Plain language versions of CFIR construct barrier narratives are needed. Our plain language versions require further testing and refining.

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services.

BACKGROUND: Seven housing and health services organizations were guided through a process of translating Chapter Six of the Canadian Guidelines for Recovery-Oriented Practice into a recovery-oriented innovation and plan for its implementation. At the time of the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown measures, six of the seven organizations had begun implementing their chosen innovation (peer workers, wellness recovery action planning facilitator training, staff training and a family support group). This mid-implementation study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify contextual factors that influenced organizations to continue or postpone implementation of recovery-oriented innovations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Twenty-seven semi-structured 45-min interviews were conducted between May and June 2020 (21 implementation team members and six providers of the innovation (trainers, facilitators, peer workers). Interview guides and analysis were based on the CFIR. Content analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches. Summaries of coded data were given ratings based on strength and valence of the construct's impact on implementation. Ratings were visualized by mid-implementation outcome and recovery innovation to identify constructs which appear to distinguish between sites with a more or less favorable mid-implementation outcomes. RESULTS: Four mid-implementation outcomes were observed at this snapshot in time (from most to least positive): continued implementation with adaptation (one site), postponement with adaptation and estimated relaunch date (four sites), indefinite postponement with no decision on relaunch date (one site), and no implementation of innovation yet (one site). Two constructs had either a negative influence (external policies and incentives-renamed COVID-19-related external policy for this study) or a positive influence (leadership engagement), regardless of implementation outcome. Four factors appeared to distinguish between more or less positive mid-implementation outcome: adaptability, implementation climate and relative priority, available resources, and formally appointed internal implementation leaders (renamed "engaging implementation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic" for this study). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented outer setting factor. Studies that use the CFIR at the mid-implementation stage are rare, as are studies focusing on the outer setting. Through robust qualitative analysis, we identify the key factors that shaped the course of implementation of recovery innovations over this turbulent time.

Protocol for a mixed studies systematic review on the implementation of the recovery approach in adult mental health services.

INTRODUCTION: Recovery is integral to mental health planning in G-8 countries including Canada. A recovery-oriented approach to care aims to promote personal empowerment, illness self-management and a life beyond services for people with serious mental illness (SMI), while reducing the financial burden associated with mental illness. Although there is a growing body of literature on recovery, no synthesis of research on the implementation of recovery into mental health services exists. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to conduct a mixed studies systematic review on the operationalisation of recovery into mental health services for adults with SMI. It will inform the transformation of Canadian services to a recovery orientation, but may be applicable to other countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Seven databases including PubMed, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycInfo, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and Scopus will be searched for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from 1998 to December 2016. Systematic reviews and studies using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies will be included. Secondary searches will be conducted in reference lists of all selected full text articles. Handsearches will also be performed in the tables of contents of three recovery-focused journals for the last 5 years. International experts in the field will be contacted for comments and advice. Data extraction will include identification and methodological synthesis of each study; definition of recovery; information on recovery implementation; facilitators and barriers and study outcomes. A quality assessment will be conducted on each study. The data will be synthesised and a stepwise thematic analysis performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this knowledge synthesis. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge translation activities including: (1) a 1-day symposium; (2) presentations in national and international conferences and to local stakeholders; (3) publications in peer-reviewed journals; (4) posts on the organisational websites.