A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution. METHOD: Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team. RESULTS: From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

Changing hearts and minds: theorizing how, when, and under what conditions three social influence implementation strategies work.

Background: Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap. Methods: Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them. Findings: Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD. Discussion: The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings.

Testing an Organizational Implementation Process Model Related to Teachers' Implementation-Related Attitudes and Behaviors: a Multilevel Mediation Analysis.

The effectiveness of school-based universal prevention programs is frequently diminished due to low-quality implementation. Organizational factors support high-quality implementation because of their broad influence across implementers. Conceptually, implementation leadership (i.e., behaviors that prioritize, reward, and support evidence-based practice [EBP] implementation) works to embed a favorable implementation climate (i.e., implementers' collective perceptions that their organization prioritizes, rewards, and support EBP implementation) leading to improved implementation citizenship behavior and attitudes toward EBP. This organizational implementation process model has some empirical support but has not been tested in a multilevel framework or related to hypothesized attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The sample included 319 teachers across 39 US public elementary schools; all were implementing Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. Multilevel mediation (level 1 = teacher, level 2 = school) was used to test the indirect association of implementation leadership on implementation-related attitudes and behaviors via implementation climate across two time points (fall and spring). At the school level, the organizational implementation process model was validated related to implementation citizenship behavior, but not attitudes toward EBP. At the teacher level, the process model was validated related to both outcomes, and there was a significant direct effect of implementation leadership on attitudes toward EBP. Developing strong leaders for implementation seems key to achieving high-quality EBP implementation. Implications for schools, principal training, and research are discussed.

Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): a modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources. METHOD: MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application. DISCUSSION: MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

Inter-organizational alignment and implementation outcomes in integrated mental healthcare for children and adolescents: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care involves care provided by a team of professionals, often in non-traditional settings. A common example worldwide is integrated school-based mental health (SBMH), which involves externally employed clinicians providing care at schools. Integrated mental healthcare can improve the accessibility and efficiency of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for vulnerable populations suffering from fragmented traditional care. However, integration can complicate EBP implementation due to overlapping organizational contexts, diminishing the public health impact. Emerging literature suggests that EBP implementation may benefit from the similarities in the implementation context factors between the different organizations in integrated care, which we termed inter-organizational alignment (IOA). This study quantitatively explored whether and how IOA in general and implementation context factors are associated with implementation outcomes in integrated SBMH. METHODS: SBMH clinicians from community-based organizations (CBOs; nclinician = 27) and their proximal student-support school staff (nschool = 99) rated their schools and CBOs (clinician only) regarding general (organizational culture and molar climate) and implementation context factors (Implementation Climate and Leadership), and nine common implementation outcomes (e.g., treatment integrity, service access, acceptability). The levels of IOA were estimated by intra-class correlations (ICCs). We fitted multilevel models to estimate the standalone effects of context factors from CBOs and schools on implementation outcomes. We also estimated the 2-way interaction effects between CBO and school context factors (i.e., between-setting interdependence) on implementation outcomes. RESULTS: The IOA in general context factors exceeded those of implementation context factors. The standalone effects of implementation context factors on most implementation outcomes were larger than those of general context factors. Similarly, implementation context factors between CBOs and schools showed larger 2-way interaction effects on implementation outcomes than general context factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study preliminarily supported the importance of IOA in context factors for integrated SBMH. The findings shed light on how IOA in implementation and general context factors may be differentially associated with implementation outcomes across a broad array of integrated mental healthcare settings.

Associations among educators' beliefs, intervention fidelity, and student outcomes in school-wide positive behavior interventions, and supports: A school-level moderated mediation analysis.

Existing literature has established the effectiveness of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS) for improving school-level student behavioral and academic outcomes. Implementation of SWPBIS in uncontrolled settings is often suboptimal, leading to lackluster outcomes. Researchers have developed and validated several implementation strategies to improve individual-level implementation determinants (e.g., educators' supportive beliefs) to promote the successful delivery of universal programs (e.g., SWPBIS). However, empirical studies are needed to explore the mechanisms of change through which school-level educators' beliefs influence their delivery of SWPBIS. This school-level quasi-experimental study tested a mediational mechanism of change where changes in educators' beliefs work through their intervention fidelity of SWPBIS to influence student outcomes. We delivered the Supportive Belief Intervention (a school-wide implementation strategy used before training to promote educators' supportive beliefs about SWPBIS) and then Tier 1 SWPBIS training to 81 elementary schools serving diverse student populations. At the start of the academic year, school-level educators' beliefs were assessed before the Supportive Belief Intervention. At the end of the academic year, educators' beliefs, intervention fidelity, and rates of student reading proficiency and suspension were assessed. Conditional process analyses with nonparametric bootstrapping (mediational and first stage moderated mediational models) revealed that, at the school level, a larger increase in educators' supportive beliefs was associated with enhanced SWPBIS fidelity and better corollary student outcomes (increased reading proficiency and reduced suspension), while student socioeconomic status moderated the size of the mediation effect. Implications for research and practices about the implementation of SWPBIS and school context were discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Developing the Workforce of the Digital Future: mHealth Competency and Fidelity Measurement in Community-Based Care.

Integrating mobile health (mHealth) interventions into settings that serve diverse patient populations requires that prerequisite professional competencies are delineated and that standards for clinical quality assurance can be pragmatically assessed. Heretofore, proposed mHealth competencies have been broad and have lacked a framework to support specific applications. We outline the meta-competencies identified in the literature relevant to mHealth interventions and demonstrate how these meta-competencies can be integrated with population- and intervention-related competencies to help guide a pragmatic approach to competency assessment. We present a use case based on FOCUS-an evidence-based mHealth intervention designed for individuals with serious mental illness and currently being implemented in geographically and demographically diverse community behavioral health settings. Subsequent to identifying the cross-cutting competencies relevant to the target population (outpatients experiencing psychotic symptoms), substratal intervention (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for psychosis), and treatment modality (mHealth), we detail the development process of an mHealth fidelity monitoring system (mHealth-FMS). We adhered to a published sequential 5-step process to design a fidelity monitoring system that aligns with our integrated mHealth competency framework and that was guided by best practices prescribed by the Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium. The mHealth-FMS is intended to enhance both clinical and implementation outcomes by grounding the mHealth interventionist and the system of care in which they operate in the core functions, tasks, knowledge, and competencies associated with system-integrated mHealth delivery. Future research will explore acceptability and feasibility of the mHealth-FMS.

Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize Evidence (HELM): The iterative redesign of the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI) intervention for use in schools.

Background: Few "intervention agnostic" strategies have been developed that can be applied to the broad array of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in schools. This paper describes two studies that reflect the initial iterative redesign phases of an effective leadership-focused implementation strategy-Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI)-to ensure its acceptability, feasibility, contextual appropriateness, and usability when used in elementary schools. Our redesigned strategy-Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize Evidence (HELM)-is designed to improve principals' use of strategic implementation leadership to support the adoption and high-fidelity delivery of a universal EBP to improve student outcomes. Method: In Study 1, focus groups were conducted (n = 6) with 54 district administrators, principals, and teachers. Stakeholders provided input on the appropriateness of original LOCI components to maximize relevance and utility in schools. Transcripts were coded using conventional content analysis. Key themes referencing low appropriateness were summarized to inform LOCI adaptations. We then held a National Expert Summit (Study 2) with 15 research and practice experts. Participants provided feedback via a nominal group process (NGP; n = 6 groups) and hackathon (n = 4 groups). The research team rated each NGP suggestion for how actionable, impactful/effective, and feasible it was. We also coded hackathon notes for novel ideas or alignment with LOCI components. Results: Study 1 suggestions included modifications to LOCI content and delivery. Study 2's NGP results revealed most recommendations to be actionable, impactful/effective, and feasible. Hackathon results surfaced two novel ideas (distributed leadership teams and leaders' knowledge to support educators EBP use) and several areas of alignment with LOCI components. Conclusion: Use of these iterative methods informed the redesign of LOCI and the development of HELM. Because it was collaboratively constructed, HELM has the potential to be an effective implementation strategy to support the use of universal EBP in schools.

Our research team designed a strategy (HELM) for school principals to improve the support they provide to staff to implement practices proven to work in research for improving student outcomes. We designed HELM by conducting focus groups with school district administrators, principals, and teachers. Participants were asked for their feedback on how to adapt an existing leadership strategy (LOCI) to the school context. After collecting this feedback, we held a meeting with 15 research and practice experts. During this meeting, the group of experts reviewed the focus group feedback and decided how to incorporate it into the design of the HELM strategy. We believe that collecting this feedback and involving research and practice experts in interpreting and integrating participant feedback into the HELM strategy will make HELM a more effective strategy for supporting school principals' in implementing supports in their schools.

Similarities and Differences Between Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials.

Pragmatism in clinical trials is focused on increasing the generalizability of research findings for routine clinical care settings. Hybridism in clinical trials (i.e., assessing both clinical effectiveness and implementation success) is focused on speeding up the process by which evidence-based practices are developed and adopted into routine clinical care. Even though pragmatic trial methodologies and implementation science evolved from very different disciplines, Pragmatic Trials and Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials share many similar design features. In fact, these types of trials can easily be conflated, creating the potential for investigators to mislabel their trial type or mistakenly use the wrong trial type to answer their research question. Blurred boundaries between trial types can hamper the evaluation of grant applications, the scientific interpretation of findings, and policy-making. Acknowledging that most trials are not pure Pragmatic Trials nor pure Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trials, there are key differences in these trial types and they answer very different research questions. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the similarities and differences of these trial types for funders, researchers, and policy-makers. In addition, recommendations are offered to help investigators choose, label, and operationalize the most appropriate trial type to answer their research question. These recommendations complement existing reporting guidelines for clinical effectiveness trials (TIDieR) and implementation trials (StaRI).

Leveraging human-centered design and causal pathway diagramming toward enhanced specification and development of innovative implementation strategies: a case example of an outreach tool to address racial inequities in breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are strategies to improve uptake of evidence-based practices or interventions and are essential to implementation science. Developing or tailoring implementation strategies may benefit from integrating approaches from other disciplines; yet current guidance on how to effectively incorporate methods from other disciplines to develop and refine innovative implementation strategies is limited. We describe an approach that combines community-engaged methods, human-centered design (HCD) methods, and causal pathway diagramming (CPD)-an implementation science tool to map an implementation strategy as it is intended to work-to develop innovative implementation strategies. METHODS: We use a case example of developing a conversational agent or chatbot to address racial inequities in breast cancer screening via mammography. With an interdisciplinary team including community members and operational leaders, we conducted a rapid evidence review and elicited qualitative data through interviews and focus groups using HCD methods to identify and prioritize key determinants (facilitators and barriers) of the evidence-based intervention (breast cancer screening) and the implementation strategy (chatbot). We developed a CPD using key determinants and proposed strategy mechanisms and proximal outcomes based in conceptual frameworks. RESULTS: We identified key determinants for breast cancer screening and for the chatbot implementation strategy. Mistrust was a key barrier to both completing breast cancer screening and using the chatbot. We focused design for the initial chatbot interaction to engender trust and developed a CPD to guide chatbot development. We used the persuasive health message framework and conceptual frameworks about trust from marketing and artificial intelligence disciplines. We developed a CPD for the initial interaction with the chatbot with engagement as a mechanism to use and trust as a proximal outcome leading to further engagement with the chatbot. CONCLUSIONS: The use of interdisciplinary methods is core to implementation science. HCD is a particularly synergistic discipline with multiple existing applications of HCD to implementation research. We present an extension of this work and an example of the potential value in an integrated community-engaged approach of HCD and implementation science researchers and methods to combine strengths of both disciplines and develop human-centered implementation strategies rooted in causal perspective and healthcare equity.

A case study of pragmatic measure development of the Treatment Integrity for Elementary Settings self-report measure for teachers.

Introduction: Due to usability, feasibility, and acceptability concerns, observational treatment fidelity measures are often challenging to deploy in schools. Teacher self-report fidelity measures with specific design features might address some of these barriers. This case study outlines a community-engaged, iterative process to adapt the observational Treatment Integrity for Elementary Settings (TIES-O) to a teacher self-report version designed to assess the use of practices to support children's social-emotional competencies in elementary classrooms. Method: Cognitive walkthrough interviews were conducted with teachers to improve the usability of the teacher self-report measure, called the Treatment Integrity for Elementary Schools-Teacher Report (TIES-T). Qualitative content analysis was used to extract themes from the interviews and inform changes to the measure. Results: Increasing clarity and interactive elements in the measure training were the dominant themes, but suggestions for the measure format and jargon were also suggested. Conclusion: The suggested changes resulted in a brief measure, training, and feedback system designed to support the teacher's use of practices to support children's social-emotional competencies in elementary classrooms. Future research with the TIES-T will examine the score reliability and validity of the measure.

Collecting observational data in schools is challenging, so developing teacher self-report measures and involving teachers in the design process is important to help make them easier to use. This paper reports on the development of a teacher self-report measure designed to collect information about the instructional practices teachers deliver to promote positive student behavior.

Fidelity-consistency and deliberateness of modifications in parenting programs.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are frequently modified in practice. It is recommended that decisions to modify EBIs should be made deliberately to ensure fidelity-consistency, yet the relationship between fidelity-consistency and deliberateness is not well understood. This study aims to explore modifications in a sample of practitioners delivering evidence-based parenting programs (i.e., interventions to strengthen parent-child relationships, reduce harmful interactions, and improve child health and well-being). The study investigated three research questions: (1) What kind of modifications are made during the delivery of parenting programs? (2) To what degree are the identified modifications consistent with the core functions of each program? and (3) Is deliberateness associated with the fidelity-consistency of the identified modifications? METHODS: In total, 28 group leaders of five widely disseminated parenting programs in Sweden participated in five focus groups, and two participants from each group also participated in individual interviews (n = 10). A content analysis approach was used where the identification of modifications was directed by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME) and then assessed for fidelity-consistency and four levels of deliberateness (universal, situational, conditional, and unintentional). Chi-square tests were performed to compare consistent and inconsistent modifications, and logistic regression was performed to explore whether deliberateness predicted consistency. RESULTS: A total of 137 content modifications were identified, covering most of the content modification categories in FRAME. The most common were tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, shortening/condensing, lengthening/extending, and integrating another treatment. Modifications were mostly fidelity-consistent but consistency varied greatly among categories. Furthermore, modifications made unintentionally or situationally were more likely to be fidelity-inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that explicit consideration of modifications and their impact could be essential for sustaining the fidelity-consistent use of EBIs, even as such interventions are continuously modified.

Protocol for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial of a pragmatic individual-level implementation strategy for supporting school-based prevention programming.

BACKGROUND: For approximately one in five children who have social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) challenges, accessible evidence-based prevention practices (EBPPs) are critical. In the USA, schools are the primary setting for children's SEB service delivery. Still, EBPPs are rarely adopted and implemented by front-line educators (e.g., teachers) with sufficient fidelity to see effects. Given that individual behavior change is ultimately required for successful implementation, focusing on individual-level processes holds promise as a parsimonious approach to enhance impact. Beliefs and Attitudes for Successful Implementation in Schools for Teachers (BASIS-T) is a pragmatic, multifaceted pre-implementation strategy targeting volitional and motivational mechanisms of educators' behavior change to enhance implementation and student SEB outcomes. This study protocol describes a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial designed to evaluate the main effects, mediators, and moderators of the BASIS-T implementation strategy as applied to Positive Greetings at the Door, a universal school-based EBPP previously demonstrated to reduce student disruptive behavior and increase academic engagement. METHODS: This project uses a blocked randomized cohort design with an active comparison control (ACC) condition. We will recruit and include approximately 276 teachers from 46 schools randomly assigned to BASIS-T or ACC conditions. Aim 1 will evaluate the main effects of BASIS-T on proximal implementation mechanisms (attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, intentions to implement, and maintenance self-efficacy), implementation outcomes (adoption, reach, fidelity, and sustainment), and child outcomes (SEB, attendance, discipline, achievement). Aim 2 will examine how, for whom, under what conditions, and how efficiently BASIS-T works, specifically by testing whether the effects of BASIS-T on child outcomes are (a) mediated via its putative mechanisms of behavior change, (b) moderated by teacher factors or school contextual factors, and (c) cost-effective. DISCUSSION: This study will provide a rigorous test of BASIS-T-a pragmatic, theory-driven, and generalizable implementation strategy designed to target theoretically-derived motivational mechanisms-to increase the yield of standard EBPP training and support strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05989568. Registered on May 30, 2023.

Inter-Organizational Alignment and Implementation Outcomes in Integrated Mental Healthcare for Children and Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

Background: Integrated care involves care provided by a team of professionals, often in non-traditional settings. A common example worldwide is integrated school-based mental health (SBMH), which involves externally employed clinicians providing care at schools. Integrated mental healthcare can improve the accessibility and efficiency of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for vulnerable populations suffering from fragmented traditional care. However, integration can complicate EBP implementation due to overlapping organizational contexts, diminishing the public health impact. Emerging literature suggests that EBP implementation may benefit from the similarities in the implementation context factors between the different organizations in integrated care, which we termed inter-organizational alignment (IOA). This study quantitatively explored whether and how IOAs in general and implementation context factors are associated with implementation outcomes in integrated SBMH. Methods: SBMH clinicians from community-based organizations (CBOs; nclinician=27) and their proximal student-support school staff (nschool=99) rated their schools and CBOs (clinician only) regarding general (organizational culture and molar climate) and implementation context factors (Implementation Climate and Leadership), and nine common implementation outcomes (e.g., treatment integrity, service access, acceptability). The levels of IOA were estimated by intra-class correlations (ICCs). We fitted multilevel models to estimate the standalone effects of context factors from CBOs and schools on implementation outcomes. We also estimated the 2-way interaction effects between CBO and school context factors (i.e., between-setting interdependence) on implementation outcomes. Results: The IOA in general context factors exceeded those of implementation context factors. The standalone effects of implementation context factors on most implementation outcomes were larger than those of general context factors. Similarly, implementation context factors between CBOs and schools showed larger 2-way interaction effects on implementation outcomes than general context factors. Conclusions: This study preliminarily supported the importance of IOA in context factors for integrated SBMH. The findings shed light on how IOA in implementation and general context factors may be differentially associated with implementation outcomes across a broad array of integrated mental healthcare settings.

Core Components and Implementation Determinants of Multilevel Service Delivery Frameworks Across Child Mental Health Service Settings.

Multilevel service delivery frameworks are approaches to structuring and organizing a spectrum of evidence-based services and supports, focused on assessment, prevention, and intervention designed for the local context. Exemplar frameworks in child mental health include positive behavioral interventions and supports in education, collaborative care in primary care, and systems of care in community mental health settings. Yet, their high-quality implementation has lagged. This work proposes a conceptual foundation for multilevel service delivery frameworks spanning diverse mental health service settings that can inform development of strategic implementation supports. We draw upon the existing literature for three exemplar multilevel service delivery frameworks in different child mental health service settings to (1) identify core components common to each framework, and (2) to highlight prominent implementation determinants that interface with each core component. Six interrelated components of multilevel service delivery frameworks were identified, including, (1) a systems-level approach, (2) data-driven problem solving and decision-making, (3) multiple levels of service intensity using evidence-based practices, (4) cross-linking service sectors, (5) multiple providers working together, including in teams, and (6) built-in implementation strategies that facilitate delivery of the overall model. Implementation determinants that interface with core components were identified at each contextual level. The conceptual foundation provided in this paper has the potential to facilitate cross-sector knowledge sharing, promote generalization across service settings, and provide direction for researchers, system leaders, and implementation intermediaries/practitioners working to strategically support the high-quality implementation of these frameworks.

Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): A modified Delphi study.

Background: Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources. Method: MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application. Discussion: MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

The incremental association of implementation leadership and school personnel burnout beyond transformational leadership.

Successful implementation of school-wide interventions (i.e., delivered to all students by a wide array of school personnel) is key to promoting students' academic achievement and psychosocial development. Yet, the implementation of school-wide interventions is complex and can be psychologically taxing for implementing personnel. If evidence-based practice and program (EBP) implementation goes unsupported, implementation challenges might result in chronic stress among school personnel that leads to burnout. While generally effective leadership tends to decrease educator burnout, implementation-specific leadership may also decrease burnout through its strategic supports for EBP implementation. A series of linear regression and path models were used to examine the concurrent association between transformational (e.g., general) and implementation (e.g., strategic) leadership and burnout and its component parts (i.e., emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment). In a sample of 338 school personnel, we found transformational and implementation leadership were each significantly associated with decreased burnout. However, transformational leadership was not significantly associated with any of the three burnout components, whereas implementation leadership was significantly associated with increased personal accomplishment. These results suggest both general and strategic forms of leadership are key supports for school personnel burnout and as such, leaders may benefit from training to improve each. Additional implications for schools and future directions to understand how best to support school personnel are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Study protocol of a randomized trial of STRIPES: a schoolyear, peer-delivered high school intervention for students with ADHD.

BACKGROUND: Youth with ADHD are at risk of academic impairments, dropping out of high school, and dysfunction in young adulthood. Interventions delivered early in high school could prevent these harmful outcomes, yet few high school students with ADHD receive treatment due to limited access to intervention providers. This study will test a peer-delivered intervention (STRIPES) for general education 9th grade students with impairing ADHD symptoms. METHODS: A type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of STRIPES and explore the intervention's implementability. Analyses will test the impact of STRIPES vs. enhanced school services control on target mechanisms and determine whether differences in basic cognitive profiles moderate intervention response. The acceptability and feasibility of STRIPES and treatment moderators will also be examined. DISCUSSION: This study will generate knowledge about the effectiveness and implementability of STRIPES, which will inform dissemination efforts in the future. A peer-delivered high school intervention for organization, time management, and planning skills can provide accessible and feasible treatment targeting declines in academic motivation, grades, and attendance during the ninth-grade year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on OSF Registries (10.17605/OSF.IO/Q8V6S).

Implementation resources to support teachers' use of behavioral classroom interventions: protocol of a randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Teacher-delivered behavioral classroom management interventions are effective for students with or at-risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or other disruptive behavior challenges, but they can be difficult for teachers to use in the classroom. In this study, we will pilot test a package of implementation strategies to support teachers in using behavioral classroom interventions for students with ADHD symptoms. METHODS: We will use a 2-group, randomized controlled trial to compare outcomes for teachers who receive Positive Behavior Management Implementation Resources (PBMIR), a theory and data-driven implementation resource package designed to increase teacher implementation of behavioral classroom management interventions, with those who do not receive this additional implementation support. We will measure teacher implementation outcomes (e.g., observed fidelity to behavioral classroom interventions) and student clinical outcomes (e.g., ADHD-related impairment, ADHD symptoms, student-teacher relationship, academic performance) before and after an 8-week intervention period for both groups; we will also measure teacher-reported acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for the PBMIR group following the intervention period. DISCUSSION: If there is preliminary evidence of feasibility and effectiveness, this pilot study will provide the foundation for evaluation the PBMIR at a larger scale and the potential to improve outcomes for students with or at risk for ADHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ) on 8/5/2022 which was prior to the time of first participant enrollment. The registration number is: NCT05489081.