Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation.

Background: Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource. Methods: We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with "facilitation" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection. Findings: The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software. Conclusion: We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

Getting to Fidelity: Consensus Development Process to Identify Core Activities of Implementation Facilitation.

Transferring successful implementation strategies from research to practice requires approaches for assessing fidelity to the strategy's core components. Implementation facilitation (IF) is a strategy involving an interactive process of problem-solving, enabling, and supporting individuals in efforts to implement clinical innovations that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and supportive interpersonal relationships. Because IF is a dynamic strategy involving numerous activities, our objective was to conduct a rigorous consensus development process to identify core activities for monitoring fidelity to IF when applied in clinical settings. We first conducted a scoping literature review to identify the range of activities used when IF has been applied in clinical settings, searching multiple citation databases for English-language articles including "facilitation" or other commonly-used terms for the strategy published from 1996-2015. Through multi-stage screening, 135 articles (from 94 studies) were identified for data extraction on IF activities, frequency with which IF activities were identified as 'core' by study authors, and study outcomes. From the literature review, we identified 32 distinct IF activities and developed definitions/examples for each. Next, we conducted a 3-stage, modified-Delphi expert panel consensus development process to identify core IF activities across three implementation phases (i.e., Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Sustainment). The expert panel identified 8 core activities for the Pre-Implementation Phase, 8 core activities for the Implementation Phase, and 4 core activities for the Sustainment Phase. This work provides an important foundation for developing measures/tools to assess use of core IF activities to ensure the strategy is delivered with fidelity.

Recruitment tools for transgender and gender diverse veterans in health care research.

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) veterans in the Veterans Health Administration experience health and health care disparities, and research with this population is needed to improve gender-affirming care in Veterans Health Administration. However, TGD veterans may experience hesitancy to participate in research. We must address barriers to participation through feasible and acceptable methods. Opt-out letters are an effective tool used to recruit veterans in mental health research. The present study examined the feasibility and acceptability of opt-out letters modified for TGD veterans. Opt-out letters were sent to 54 potential TGD participants at three sites. The letters stated the research team would begin contacting veterans by phone in 2 weeks if they did not opt out of being contacted. Feasibility was measured through response rate. Acceptability was assessed through qualitative template analysis of interview data. Of the 54 potential participants, two opted out, three letters were undeliverable, and eight veterans called to opt in. Veterans reported that they found the letters to be clear and useful. The responses to the opt-out letters resulted in completing recruitment for two of the three sites. The research team then called the veterans who received the letter at the third site (three veterans) and recruited one additional veteran, for a total of nine TGD veterans. Opt-out letters may be a helpful tool to recruit TGD veterans to participate in research. Although these letters were designed to opt out, 89% of participants called the research team to opt in. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Impact of Implementation Facilitation on the REACH VET Clinical Program for Veterans at Risk for Suicide.

OBJECTIVE: In 2017, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented a national suicide prevention program, called Recovery Engagement and Coordination for Health-Veterans Enhanced Treatment (REACH VET), that uses a predictive algorithm to identify, attempt to reach, assess, and care for patients at the highest risk for suicide. The authors aimed to evaluate whether facilitation enhanced implementation of REACH VET at VHA facilities not meeting target completion rates. METHODS: In this hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 2 program evaluation, a quasi-experimental pre-post design was used to assess changes in implementation outcome measures evaluated 6 months before and 6 months after onset of facilitation of REACH VET implementation at 23 VHA facilities. Measures included percentages of patients with documented coordinator and provider acknowledgment of receipt, care evaluation, and outreach attempt. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare differences in REACH VET outcome measures before and after facilitation. Qualitative interviews were conducted with personnel and were explored via template analysis. RESULTS: Time had a significant effect in all outcomes models (p<0.001). An effect of facilitation was significant only for the outcome of attempted outreach. Patients identified by REACH VET had significantly higher odds of having a documented outreach attempt after facilitation of REACH VET implementation, compared with before facilitation. Site personnel felt supported and reported that the external facilitators were helpful and responsive. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation of REACH VET implementation was associated with an improvement in outreach attempts to veterans identified as being at increased risk for suicide. Outreach is critical for engaging veterans in care.

Impact of Primary Care-Mental Health Care Integration on Mental Health Care Engagement Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.

OBJECTIVE: Receiving mental health services as part of primary care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) might increase engagement in specialty mental health care. The authors reexamined the association between primary care-mental health integration (PCMHI) and continued engagement in specialty mental health care for VHA patients and assessed differences by race and ethnicity. METHODS: The study included 437,051 primary care patients with a first in-person specialty mental health encounter in 2015-2016 (no specialty mental health encounters in prior 12 months), including 46,417 patients with new PCMHI encounters in the year before the first specialty mental health encounter. Multivariable logistic regression assessed odds of follow-up specialty mental health care within 3 months of the first specialty mental health encounter. The dependent variable was care engagement (attending a second specialty mental health appointment); independent variables were whether patients were seen by PCMHI on the same day as the primary care appointment ("same-day access"), the time between PCMHI and first specialty mental health appointments, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: PCMHI was associated with increased engagement in specialty mental health care for all patients, with a greater likelihood of engagement among non-Hispanic White patients. Same-day access to PCMHI was positively associated with care engagement, with no significant differences by race or ethnicity. PCMHI care within 3 months before a first specialty mental health encounter was associated with greater care engagement. CONCLUSIONS: PCMHI, especially same-day access to PCMHI care, may boost engagement in mental health care, although the study design precluded conclusions regarding causal relationships.

Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: One practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S. METHODS: We wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template. RESULTS: We found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing. CONCLUSION: We clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places.

Increasing consumer engagement: tools to engage service users in quality improvement or implementation efforts.

Introduction: Engaging service users or consumers in quality improvement or implementing a new service is important across settings and may reduce health inequities. Implementation strategies leveraging consumer engagement are neither commonly used nor robustly operationalized in implementation science. Implementers (e.g., middle managers, facilitators) want to involve consumers in implementation activities, but do not always feel confident in how to proceed. We developed a compendium of tools called Consumer Voice to guide others how to engage consumers in design/delivery of implementation strategies. Although generalizable to other settings, we developed Consumer Voice within the context of implementing suicide prevention treatments in healthcare to reach rural U.S. military veterans, as there are suicide inequities for people in rural areas. Methods: We developed Consumer Voice using a multistep process and human-centered design methods. In between steps, a design team met to generate insights from data, and decide which prototypes to create/refine. In preliminary work, we conducted a scan of examples in healthcare of patient engagement in implementation activities and interviewed two implementation experts about preferred learning styles. In Step 1, we interviewed 26 participants with experience in community engagement, implementation, or lived experience as a rural U.S. veteran with suicidal thoughts/behavior. In Step 2, 11 implementers beta tested prototypes then share feedback in focus groups. In Step 3, we reconvened participants from prior steps to review tools and, using nominal group technique, prioritized remaining recommendations. Results: Consumer Voice is online, modular, and nonlinear for self-guided learning tailored to beginner, intermediate, or advanced experience with consumer engagement. Tools consist of slides, audiovisual content with written text, and templates. Findings indicated there is not one "right" way to engage consumers in implementation activities, rather that implementers wanted tools showcasing core principles for consumer engagement and practical ideas. Discussion: Consumer Voice can be used by implementers to reflect and decide on how to apply consumer engagement implementation strategies to improve equitable dissemination and uptake of evidence-based practices. Most insights generated by user data were explicitly to build trust between consumers and professionals representing institutions, which may be one component to reducing healthcare inequities.

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts. OBJECTIVE: Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes. FINDINGS: Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator's role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process. IMPACT: Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

Facilitating implementation of primary care mental health over time and across organizational contexts: a qualitative study of role and process.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations have increasingly utilized facilitation to improve implementation of evidence-based practices and programs (e.g., primary care mental health integration). Facilitation is both a role, related to the purpose of facilitation, and a process, i.e., how a facilitator operationalizes the role. Scholars continue to call for a better understanding of this implementation strategy. Although facilitation is described as dynamic, activities are often framed within the context of a staged process. We explored two understudied characteristics of implementation facilitation: 1) how facilitation activities change over time and in response to context, and 2) how facilitators operationalize their role when the purpose of facilitation is both task-focused (i.e., to support implementation) and holistic (i.e., to build capacity for future implementation efforts). METHODS: We conducted individual monthly debriefings over thirty months with facilitators who were supporting PCMHI implementation in two VA networks. We developed a list of facilitation activities based on a literature review and debriefing notes and conducted a content analysis of debriefing notes by coding what activities occurred and their intensity by quarter. We also coded whether facilitators were "doing" these activities for sites or "enabling" sites to perform them. RESULTS: Implementation facilitation activities did not occur according to a defined series of ordered steps but in response to specific organizational contexts through a non-linear and incremental process. Amount and types of activities varied between the networks. Concordant with facilitators' planned role, the focus of some facilitation activities was primarily on doing them for the sites and others on enabling sites to do for themselves; a number of activities did not fit into one category and varied across networks. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that facilitation is a dynamic and fluid process, with facilitation activities, as well as their timing and intensity, occurring in response to specific organizational contexts. Understanding this process can help those planning and applying implementation facilitation to make conscious choices about the facilitation role and the activities that facilitators can use to operationalize this role. Additionally, this work provides the foundation from which future studies can identify potential mechanisms of action through which facilitation activities enhance implementation uptake.

Implementation of group cognitive processing therapy in correction centers: Anticipated determinants from formative evaluation.

Nearly all people in prison have experienced trauma, and many meet the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Untreated PTSD increases the risk of substance use problems after release, contributing to a well-documented cycle of trauma, addiction, and incarceration. However, evidence-based, trauma-focused therapy for PTSD is rarely offered in prisons, and there is little research that can guide implementation efforts. In preparation for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid II pilot trial examining group-delivered cognitive processing therapy (CPT) in prisons, we conducted a formative evaluation using interviews structured according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (i.e., CFIR). Participants were correction center leadership, treatment staff, health care staff, and security staff (n = 22) and incarcerated persons (n = 14; 57.1% female). We found that CPT was highly compatible with residents' needs and the centers' available resources, culture, existing programs, and current workflow. CPT was also acceptable to all stakeholders. Potential barriers were the lower relative priority for CPT compared with programs that are reinforced at the system level, limited staff time to deliver CPT, limited staff knowledge about PTSD, and center features that could distract from CPT groups and/or training or be countertherapeutic. Taken together, CPT is a promising trauma-focused therapy for corrections, but these findings underscore the importance of identifying and matching potential barriers to effective implementation strategies a priori and work in the policy arena to promote sustainability.

Implementation of LGBTQ+ affirming care policies in the Veterans Health Administration: preliminary findings on barriers and facilitators in the southern United States.

Background: In the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), veterans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and similar gender and sexual minoritized people (LGBTQ+) experience health disparities compared to cisgender, heterosexual veterans. VA's LGBTQ+ Health Program created two healthcare policies on providing LGBTQ+ affirming care (healthcare that is inclusive, validating, and understanding of the LGBTQ+ population). The current project examines providers' barriers and facilitators to providing LGBTQ+ affirming care and LGBTQ+ veterans' barriers and facilitators to receiving LGBTQ+ affirming care. Methods: Data collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which was adapted to include three health equity domains. Data collection involved telephone interviews conducted with 11 VA providers and 12 LGBTQ+ veterans at one rural and one urban VA medical center, and one rural VA community clinic. Qualitative data were rapidly analyzed using template analysis, a data reduction technique. Results: Providers described limited education, limited time, lack of experience with the population, and a lack of awareness of resources as barriers. Providers discussed comfort with consulting trusted peers, interest in learning more about providing LGBTQ+ affirming care, and openness and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community as facilitators. LGBTQ+ veterans described a lack of provider awareness of their needs, concerns related to safety and discrimination, and structural discrimination as barriers. LGBTQ+ veterans described positive relationships with providers, knowledge of their own healthcare needs, and ability to advocate for their healthcare needs as facilitators. Although VA's LGBTQ+ affirming care policies are in place, providers and veterans noted a lack of awareness regarding specific healthcare processes. Conclusion: Allowing more time and capacity for education and engaging LGBTQ+ veterans in determining how to improve their healthcare may be the path forward to increase adherence to LGBTQ+ affirming care policies. Engaging patients, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, in strategies focused on the uptake of policy may be a path to improve policy implementation. It is possible that creating truly collaborative structures in which patients, staff, providers, leadership, and policymakers can work together towards policy implementation may be a useful strategy. In turn, improved policy implementation would result in increased physical and mental health for LGBTQ+ veterans.

A participant-randomized pilot hybrid II trial of group cognitive processing therapy for incarcerated persons with posttraumatic stress and substance use disorder symptoms: study protocol and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Trauma exposure and drug addiction go hand-in-hand for the 2.17 million people who are incarcerated in US prisons; prevalence of both exceed 80% among this population. This manuscript describes the rationale and methods for a participant-randomized effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II pilot trial designed to: 1) examine the effectiveness of Cognitive Processing Therapy group (CPT), an evidence-based psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for reducing post-release drug use and PTSD symptoms when adapted for and delivered in prisons; and 2) provide data on implementation outcomes associated with the use of implementation facilitation as a strategy for supporting uptake of CPT in prisons. METHOD: Participants in the effectiveness portion of the trial (N = 120) will be incarcerated men and women who are randomly assigned to one of two group therapies: CPT or a control condition (PTSD coping skills group; PCS). Participants will complete assessment measures three times: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 3 months following release from incarceration. CPT groups will be led by prison counselors who are receiving implementation facilitation to support their efforts. PCS groups will be led by trained clinicians on the research team. Implementation outcomes will include acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, and sustainability. After enrollment ends, the research team will monitor CPT sustainment and recidivism outcomes of study participants for one year. DISCUSSION: This study will lay the groundwork for a larger study of interventions for co-occurring PTSD and SUD in prisons and, critically, inform the development of strategies (such as implementation facilitation) for supporting their uptake in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04007666 , clinicaltrials.gov, 24 June 2019, 02 September 2021.

Determining feasibility of incorporating consumer engagement into implementation activities: study protocol of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type II pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation researchers could draw from participatory research to engage patients (consumers of healthcare) in implementation processes and possibly reduce healthcare disparities. There is a little consumer involvement in healthcare implementation, partially because no formal guidance exists. We will create and pilot a toolkit of methods to engage consumers from the US' Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in selecting and tailoring implementation strategies. This toolkit, Consumer Voice, will provide guidance on what, when, where, how and why an implementer might engage consumers in implementing treatments. We will pilot the toolkit by implementing Safety Planning Intervention for suicide prevention with rural veterans, a population with suicide disparities. Safety Planning Intervention is effective for reducing suicidal behaviours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Aim 1, we will use participatory approaches and user-centred design to develop Consumer Voice and its methods. In Aim 2, we will pilot Consumer Voice by implementing the Safety Planning Intervention in two clinics serving rural VHA patients. One site will receive a current implementation strategy (Implementation Facilitation) only; the second will receive Implementation Facilitation plus Consumer Voice. We will use mixed methods to assess feasibility and acceptability of Consumer Voice. We will compare sites on preliminary implementation (reach, adoption, fidelity) and clinical outcomes (depression severity, suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviour). In Aim 3, we will evaluate Aim 2 outcomes at 20 months to assess sustained impact. We will gather qualitative data on sustainability of the Safety Planning Intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: These studies are overseen by the Institutional Review Board at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. We plan to use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences, publications). We plan to disseminate findings through meetings with other trainers in implementation practice so they may adopt Consumer Voice. We plan to share results with local community boards.

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of an Implementation Facilitation Training Program.

Background: Implementation scientists are identifying evidence-based implementation strategies that support the uptake of evidence-based practices and other clinical innovations. However, there is limited information regarding the development of training methods to educate implementation practitioners on the use of implementation strategies and help them sustain these competencies. Methods: To address this need, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a training program for one strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), that was designed to maximize applicability in diverse clinical settings. Trainees included implementation practitioners, clinical managers, and researchers. From May 2017 to July 2019, we sent trainees an electronic survey via email and asked them to complete the survey at three-time points: approximately 2 weeks before and 2 weeks and 6 months after each training. Participants ranked their knowledge of and confidence in applying IF skills using a 4-point Likert scale. We compared scores at baseline to post-training and at 6 months, as well as post-training to 6 months post-training (nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests). Results: Of the 102 participants (76 in-person, 26 virtual), there was an increase in perceived knowledge and confidence in applying IF skills across all learning objectives from pre- to post-training (95% response rate) and pre- to 6-month (35% response rate) follow-up. There was no significant difference in results between virtual and in-person trainees. When comparing post-training to 6 months (30% response rate), perceptions of knowledge increase remained unchanged, although participants reported reduced perceived confidence in applying IF skills for half of the learning objectives at 6 months. Conclusions: Findings indicated that we have developed a promising IF training program. Lack of differences in results between virtual and in-person participants indicated the training can be provided to a remote site without loss of knowledge/skills transfer but ongoing support may be needed to help sustain perceived confidence in applying these skills. Plain Language Summary: While implementation scientists are documenting an increasing number of implementation strategies that support the uptake of evidence-based practices and other clinical innovations, little is known about how to transfer this knowledge to those who conduct implementation efforts in the frontline clinical practice settings. We developed, implemented, and conducted a preliminary evaluation of a training program for one strategy, implementation facilitation (IF). The training program targets facilitation practitioners, clinical managers, and researchers. This paper describes the development of the training program, the program components, and the results from an evaluation of IF knowledge and skills reported by a subset of people who participated in the training. Findings from the evaluation indicate that this training program significantly increased trainees' perceived knowledge of and confidence in applying IF skills. Further research is needed to examine whether ongoing mentoring helps trainees retain confidence in applying some IF skills over the longer term.

Time-motion analysis of external facilitation for implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in general mental health clinics: Use of an interval-based data collection approach.

Background: Facilitation is an effective strategy to implement evidence-based practices, often involving external facilitators (EFs) bringing content expertise to implementation sites. Estimating time spent on multifaceted EF activities is complex. Furthermore, collecting continuous time-motion data for facilitation tasks is challenging. However, organizations need this information to allocate implementation resources to sites. Thus, our objectives were to conduct a time-motion analysis of external facilitation, and compare continuous versus noncontinuous approaches to collecting time-motion data. Methods: We analyzed EF time-motion data from six VA mental health clinics implementing the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM). We documented EF activities during pre-implementation (4-6 weeks) and implementation (12 months) phases. We collected continuous data during the pre-implementation phase, followed by data collection over a 2-week period (henceforth, "a two-week interval") at each of three time points (beginning/middle/end) during the implementation phase. As a validity check, we assessed how closely interval data represented continuous data collected throughout implementation for two of the sites. Results: EFs spent 21.8 ± 4.5 h/site during pre-implementation off-site, then 27.5 ± 4.6 h/site site-visiting to initiate implementation. Based on the 2-week interval data, EFs spent 2.5 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.6 h/week toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end, respectively. Prevalent activities were preparation/planning, process monitoring, program adaptation, problem identification, and problem-solving. Across all activities, 73.6% of EF time involved email, phone, or video communication. For the two continuous data sites, computed weekly time averages toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end differed from the interval data's averages by 1.0, 0.1, and 0.2 h, respectively. Activities inconsistently captured in the interval data included irregular assessment, stakeholder engagement, and network development. Conclusions: Time-motion analysis of CCM implementation showed initial higher-intensity EF involvement that tapered. The 2-week interval data collection approach, if accounting for its potential underestimation of irregular activities, may be promising/efficient for implementation studies collecting time-motion data.

Engaging frontline workers in policy development to support the implementation of measurement-based care: Lessons learned from a field-based workgroup.

Measurement-Based Care (MBC) is the use of patient-reported outcome measures repeatedly over the course of treatment to track progress and empower both providers and patients to collaboratively set goals and plan treatment. The Measurement-Based Care in Mental Health Initiative within the Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention partnered with the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Mentoring Program to create an interdisciplinary field-based workgroup. The workgroup included psychologists, clinical social workers, and mental health counselors from PTSD Clinical Teams. The task of the workgroup was to create guidelines for best practice in delivery of MBC in PTSD Clinical Teams given anticipated policy requiring MBC to be used in PTSD Clinical Teams. Framed in the Strategic Action Field Framework for Policy Implementation Research, the current paper evaluates this hybrid top-down and bottom-up process of policy development. Major barriers included difficulty with the workgroup as an authentic bottom-up process, inability to reach the entire field (e.g., focus groups not widely attended by providers), and limited diversity in the workgroup. Facilitators included using consensus to make decisions, support provided to workgroup members by national operations partners, and collaboration and mutual respect among workgroup members. Workgroup members noted an equal, respectful partnership between operations partners and the workgroup; they reported feeling empowered and believed the viewpoints of the field were included in the guidelines. Further, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the workgroup included more guidelines specific to telehealth into the guidelines. This hybrid model provides a process through which frontline workers can inform policy development and implementation.

Adapting Caring Contacts for Veterans in a Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Department: Results From a Type 2 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Pilot Study.

Transitions in care, such as discharge from an emergency department (ED), are periods of increased risk for suicide and effective interventions that target these periods are needed. Caring Contacts is an evidence-based suicide prevention intervention that targets transitions, yet it has not been widely implemented. This pilot study adapted Caring Contacts for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ED setting and population, created an implementation toolkit, and piloted implementation and evaluation of effectiveness. To inform adaptation, qualitative interviews were conducted with stakeholders. Data were used by an advisory board comprised of stakeholders, experts, and veterans to make adaptations and develop an implementation planning guide to delineate steps needed to implement. Key decisions about how to adapt Caring Contacts included recipients, author, content, and the schedule for sending. Pilot implementation occurred at one VA ED. Caring Contacts involved sending patients at risk of suicide brief, non-demanding expressions of care. Program evaluation of the pilot used a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to both pilot an implementation strategy and evaluate effectiveness of Caring Contacts. Evaluation included qualitative interviews with veteran patients during implementation. VA electronic health records were used to evaluate VA service utilization in the 6-month periods immediately before and after veterans were delivered their first Caring Contact. Hundred and seventy-five veterans were mailed Caring Contacts and the facility continued adoption after the pilot. Participants were positive about the intervention and reported feeling cared about and connected to VA as a result of receiving Caring Contacts. This project developed an implementation planning process that successfully implemented Caring Contacts at one site. This can be used to further implement Caring Contacts at additional VA or community EDs.

A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Due to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance. METHODS: We completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework. RESULTS: We describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures. CONCLUSION: Incorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.

From novice to expert: methods for transferring implementation facilitation skills to improve healthcare delivery.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial evidence that facilitation can address the challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations. However, facilitators need a wide variety of complex skills; lack of these can have a negative effect on implementation outcomes. Literature suggests that novice and less experienced facilitators need ongoing support from experts to develop these skills. Yet, no studies have investigated the transfer process. During a test of a facilitation strategy applied at 8 VA primary care clinics, we explored the techniques and processes an expert external facilitator utilized to transfer her skills to two initially novice internal facilitators who became experts. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted monthly debriefings with three facilitators over a 30-month period and documented these in detailed notes. Debriefings with the expert facilitator focused on how she trained and mentored facilitation trainees. We also conducted, recorded, and transcribed two semi-structured qualitative interviews with each facilitator and queried them about training content and process. We used a mix of inductive and deductive approaches to analyze data; our analysis was informed by a review of mentoring, coaching, and cognitive apprenticeship literature. We also used a case comparison approach to explore how the expert tailored her efforts. RESULTS: The expert utilized 21 techniques to transfer implementation facilitation skills. Techniques included both active (providing information, modeling, and coaching) and participatory ones. She also used techniques to support learning, i.e., cognitive supports (making thinking visible, using heuristics, sharing experiences), psychosocial supports, strategies to promote self-learning, and structural supports. Additionally, she transferred responsibility for facilitation through a dynamic process of interaction with trainees and site stakeholders. Finally, the expert varied the level of focus on particular skills to tailor her efforts to trainee and local context. CONCLUSIONS: This study viewed the journey from novice to expert facilitator through the lens of the expert who transferred facilitation skills to support implementation of an evidence-based program. It identified techniques and processes that may foster transfer of these skills and build organizational capacity for future implementation efforts. As the first study to document the implementation facilitation skills transfer process, findings have research and practical implications.

Implementing and Sustaining SHARE: An Exposure-Based Psychotherapy Group for Incarcerated Women Survivors of Sexual Violence.

Although incarcerated women are a highly victimized population, therapy for sexual violence victimization (SVV) sequela is not routinely offered in prison. SHARE is a group therapy for SVV survivors that was successfully implemented and sustained in a women's correction center. Here, we aimed to identify implementation factors and strategies that led to SHARE's success and describe incarcerated women's perspectives on the program. We conducted a retrospective process evaluation using interviews structured according to EPIS, a well-established implementation science framework. Participants (N = 22) were incarcerated women, members of the SHARE treatment team, and members of the correction center's leadership, therapeutic team, and volunteer program. Factors that facilitated SHARE implementation varied by EPIS phase and organization. Positive inter-organizational and interpersonal relationships were key across phases, as were the synergies between both the strengths and needs of each organization involved in implementation. Incarcerated women reported a strong need for SHARE and did not report any concerns about receiving trauma therapy in a carceral setting. Therapy for SVV sequelae, including exposure-based therapy, is possible to implement and sustain in carceral settings. Community-academic partnerships may be a particularly feasible way to expand access to SVV therapy for incarcerated women.