The association between religiosity and pregnancy acceptability among Latino/a young adults: does generational status matter?

The US Latino/a population is considered to be at high risk for unintended pregnancy; some research indicates that Latino/a parents are more likely to express happiness about an unintended pregnancy than other racial/ethnic groups. Associations between pregnancy attitudes and factors such as religiosity and nativity have also been documented in the Latino/a population, but existing research is sparse, dated and primarily focused on women of Mexican heritage. This study sought to expand this literature by examining the relationship between religiosity and pregnancy acceptability and assessing effect modification by generational status and gender in a national sample of young Latino/a cisgender women and men of various ancestral backgrounds currently in relationships. In multivariable logistic regression models, there was a positive association between importance of religion and pregnancy acceptability for both men and women; being highly or moderately religious was associated with elevated odds of finding a pregnancy acceptable. Effect modification by generational status was significant for women, but not for men. Results suggest that religiosity, gender and generational status have differential influences on and relationships to pregnancy orientations for Latina women and Latino men and should be considered in the design and delivery of family planning care for Latino/a clients.

Cognitive-behavioral treatments for criminogenic thinking: Barriers and facilitators to implementation within the Veterans Health Administration.

Cognitive-behavioral treatments for criminogenic thinking (i.e., antisocial cognitions, attitudes, and traits) are regarded as best practices for reducing criminal recidivism among justice-involved adults. However, the barriers and facilitators to implementation of these treatments within large health care systems such as the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) are largely unknown. To address this gap, we conducted qualitative interviews with 22 Specialists from the VHA's Veterans Justice Programs who had been trained in a cognitive-behavioral treatment for criminogenic thinking (i.e., Moral Reconation Therapy [MRT], Thinking for a Change [T4C]). The time-intensiveness of these treatments emerged as a barrier to implementation. Potential solutions identified were patient incentives for treatment engagement, streamlining the curriculum, and implementing the treatments within long-term/residential programs. At the program level, providers' stigma/bias toward patients with antisocial tendencies was seen as a barrier to implementation, as were time/resource constraints on providers. To address the latter, use of peer providers to deliver the treatments and partnerships between justice programs and behavioral health services were suggested. At the system level, lack of recognition of criminogenic treatments as evidence based, and uncertainty of sustained funds to support ongoing costs of these treatments emerged as implementation barriers. To address the latter, a train-the-trainers model was suggested. Our findings serve as a guide for implementation of criminogenic treatments for providers and policymakers in VHA and other large health care systems, which are increasingly called upon to provide care to justice-involved adults in the community. (PsycINFO Database Record

Barriers, facilitators, and benefits of implementation of dialectical behavior therapy in routine care: results from a national program evaluation survey in the Veterans Health Administration.

National implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides important lessons on the barriers and facilitators to implementation in a large healthcare system. Little is known about barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a complex EBP for emotional and behavioral dysregulation-dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT). The purpose of this study was to understand VHA clinicians' experiences with barriers, facilitators, and benefits from implementing DBT into routine care. This national program evaluation survey measured site characteristics of VHA sites (N = 59) that had implemented DBT. DBT was most often implemented in general mental health outpatient clinics. While 42% of sites offered all four modes of DBT, skills group was the most frequently implemented mode. Fifty-nine percent of sites offered phone coaching in any form, yet only 11% of those offered it all the time. Providers were often provided little to no time to support implementation of DBT. Barriers that were difficult to overcome were related to phone coaching outside of business hours. Facilitators to implementation included staff interest and expertise. Perceived benefits included increased hope and functioning for clients, greater self-efficacy and compassion for providers, and ability to treat unique symptoms for clinics. There was considerable variability in the capacity to address implementation barriers among sites implementing DBT in VHA routine care. Mental health policy makers should note the barriers and facilitators reported here, with specific attention to phone coaching barriers.

The Availability and Utility of Services to Address Risk Factors for Recidivism among Justice-Involved Veterans.

The availability and utility of services to address recidivism risk factors among justice-involved veterans is unknown. We explored these issues through qualitative interviews with 63 Specialists from the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans Justice Programs. To guide the interviews, we utilized the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation. Specialists reported that justice-involved veterans generally have access to services to address most RNR-based risk factors (substance abuse; lack of positive school/work involvement; family/marital dysfunction; lack of prosocial activities/interests), but have less access to services targeting risk factors of antisocial tendencies and associates and empirically-based treatments for recidivism in VA. Peer-based services, motivational interviewing/cognitive-behavioral therapy, and Veterans Treatment Courts were perceived as useful to address multiple risk factors. These findings highlight potential gaps in provision of evidence-based care to address recidivism among justice-involved veterans, as well as promising policy-based solutions that may have widespread impact on reducing recidivism in this population.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy Training and Desired Resources for Implementation: Results From a National Program Evaluation in the Veterans Health Administration.

CONTEXT: Little is known about nonresearch training experiences of providers who implement evidence-based psychotherapies for suicidal behaviors among veterans. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This national program evaluation identified the history of training, training needs, and desired resources of clinicians who work with at-risk veterans in a national health care system. This sequential mixed methods national program evaluation used a post-only survey design to obtain needs assessment data from clinical sites (N = 59) within Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities that implemented dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). Data were also collected on resources preferred to support ongoing use of DBT. RESULTS: While only 33% of clinical sites within VHA facilities reported that staff attended a formal DBT intensive training workshop, nearly 97% of participating sites reported having staff who completed self-study using DBT manuals. Mobile apps for therapists and clients and templates for documentation in the electronic health records to support measurement-based care were desired clinical resources. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that less-intensive training models can aid staff in implementing DBT in real-world health care settings. While more training is requested, a number of VHA facilities have successfully implemented DBT into the continuum of care for veterans at risk for suicide.

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence among Women Veterans who Utilize Veterans Health Administration Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify the prevalence of past-year intimate partner violence (IPV) among women Veterans utilizing Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care, and to document associated demographic, military, and primary care characteristics. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort design, where participants completed a telephone survey in 2012 (84% participation rate); responses were linked to VHA administrative data for utilization in the year prior to the survey. PARTICIPANTS: A national stratified random sample of 6,287 women Veteran VHA primary care users participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES: Past-year IPV was assessed using the HARK screening tool. Self-report items and scales assessed demographic and military characteristics. Primary care characteristics were assessed via self-report and VHA administrative data. KEY RESULTS: The prevalence of past-year IPV among women Veterans was 18.5% (se = 0.5%), with higher rates (22.2% - 25.5%) among women up to age 55. Other demographic correlates included indicators of economic hardship, lesbian or bisexual orientation, and being a parent/guardian of a child less than 18 years old. Military correlates included service during Vietnam to post-Vietnam eras, less than 10 years of service, and experiences of Military Sexual Trauma (MST). Most (77.3%, se = 1.2%) women who experienced IPV identified a VHA provider as their usual provider. Compared with women who did not report past-year IPV, women who reported IPV had more primary care visits, yet experienced lower continuity of care across providers. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of past-year IPV among women beyond childbearing years, the majority of whom primarily rely on VHA as a source of health care, reinforces the importance of screening all women for IPV in VHA primary care settings. Key considerations for service implementation include sensitivity with respect to sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and other aspects of diversity, as well as care coordination and linkages with social services and MST-related care.

A methodology for enhancing implementation science proposals: comparison of face-to-face versus virtual workshops.

BACKGROUND: With the current funding climate and need for advancements in implementation science, there is a growing demand for grantsmanship workshops to increase the quality and rigor of proposals. A group-based implementation science-focused grantsmanship workshop, the Implementation Development Workshop (IDW), is one methodology to address this need. This manuscript provides an overview of the IDW structure, format, and findings regarding its utility. RESULTS: The IDW methodology allows researchers to vet projects in the proposal stage in a structured format with a facilitator and two types of expert participants: presenters and attendees. The presenter uses a one-page handout and verbal presentation to present their proposal and questions. The facilitator elicits feedback from attendees using a format designed to maximize the number of unique points made. After each IDW, participants completed an anonymous survey assessing perceptions of the IDW. Presenters completed a funding survey measuring grant submission and funding success. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants who participated in both delivery formats. Mixed method analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of the IDW and compare the delivery formats. Of those who participated in an IDW (N = 72), 40 participated in face-to-face only, 16 in virtual only, and 16 in both formats. Thirty-eight (face-to-face n = 12, 35 % response rate; virtual n = 26, 66.7 % response rate) responded to the surveys and seven (15.3 % response rate), who had attended both formats, completed an interview. Of 36 total presenters, 17 (face-to-face n = 12, 42.9 % response rate; virtual n = 5, 62.9 % response rate) responded to the funding survey. Mixed method analyses indicated that the IDW was effective for collaboration and growth, effective for enhancing success in obtaining grants, and acceptable. A third (35.3 %) of presenters ultimately received funding for their proposal, and more than 80 % of those who presented indicated they would present again in the future. The IDW structure and facilitation process were found to be acceptable, with both formats rated as equally strong. CONCLUSIONS: The IDW presents an acceptable and successful methodology for increasing competitiveness of implementation science grant proposals.