RESUMEN
Pragmatic measures are essential to evaluate the implementation of evidence-based interventions. Cognitive interviewing, a qualitative method that collects partner feedback throughout measure development, is particularly useful for developing pragmatic implementation measures. Measure developers can use cognitive interviewing to increase a measure's fit within a particular implementation context. However, cognitive interviewing is underused in implementation research, where most measures remain "homegrown" and used for single studies. We provide a rationale for using cognitive interviewing in implementation science studies and illustrate its use through a case example employing cognitive interviewing to inform development of a measurement-based care protocol for implementation in opioid treatment programs. Applications of cognitive interviewing, including developing a common language with partners and collecting multi-level feedback on assessment procedures, to improve measurement in implementation science are discussed.
RESUMEN
Interest in learning dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is at an all-time high. As founding faculty and fellows of a new center focused on D&I science, we have found that non-specialist researchers and newcomers to D&I science often express confusion around the difference between the D and the I. Relatedly, they struggle to identify what their specific D&I projects target to impact public health within the amorphous "black box" that is the singular, loosely defined "research-to-practice gap." To improve conceptual clarity and enhance engagement with D&I science, we developed a graphic-the D&I Bridge-and an accompanying glossary of terms to use as a teaching and framing tool. The D&I Bridge depicts D&I science as bridging what we know from public health knowledge to what we do in public health practice with intention and equity, and it spans over four distinct, inter-related gaps: the public health supply gap, the public health demand gap, the methodological/scientific gap, and the expertise capacity gap. The public health supply gap is addressed by implementation strategies, whereas the public health demand gap is addressed by dissemination strategies. The methodological/scientific gap is addressed by producing generalizable knowledge about D&I, and the expertise capacity gap is addressed by developing the multi-disciplinary workforce needed to advance D&I. Initial practice feedback about the D&I Bridge has been positive, and this conceptualization of D&I science has helped inform our center's D&I training, D&I project consultations, and strategic planning. We believe the D&I Bridge provides a useful heuristic for helping non-specialists understand the differential scopes of various D&I science projects as well as specific gaps that may be addressed by D&I methods.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Effectiveness trials aim to increase the generalizability and public health impact of interventions. However, challenges associated with this design present threats to external and internal validity. This paper illustrates these challenges using data from a two-site randomized effectiveness trial, the Community Study of Outcome Monitoring for Emotional Disorders in Teens (COMET) and presents recommendations for future research. METHOD: COMET was a randomized effectiveness trial conducted in 19 community mental health clinics in two states comparing three interventions: treatment as usual (TAU), TAU with measurement-based care (TAU+), and the Unified Protocol forTransdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders in Adolescents with MBC (UPA). Participants included 176 clinicians (mean age = 35.5; 85.8% cisgender female; 53.0% racially and/or ethnically minorized) and 196 adolescents (mean age = 14.7; 65.3% cisgender female; 69.4% racially and/or ethnically minorized). Analyses outlined participant flow from recruitment to study completion, described participant characteristics, and examined site differences. RESULTS: Analysis of participant flow suggested that recruitment and retention of clinicians and adolescents was challenging, raising questions about whether participants were representative of participating clinics. Both the clinician and adolescent samples were racially and ethnically diverse and adolescents were low income and clinically complex. Significant site differences were observed in clinician and adolescent characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: While this study was successful in recruiting a diverse and historically under-represented sample, difficulties in recruitment and retention raise questions about external validity and site differences present challenges to internal validity of study findings. Suggestions for future effectiveness studies, drawing from implementation science approaches, are discussed.
