Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mis-implementation of evidence-based behavioural health practices in primary care: lessons from randomised trials in Federally Qualified Health Centers.
Dopp, Alex R; Hindmarch, Grace; Osilla, Karen Chan; Meredith, Lisa S; Manuel, Jennifer K; Becker, Kirsten; Tarhuni, Lina; Schoenbaum, Michael; Komaromy, Miriam; Cassells, Andrea; Watkins, Katherine E.
Affiliation
  • Dopp AR; RAND Corporation, USA.
  • Hindmarch G; RAND Corporation, USA.
  • Osilla KC; Stanford University School of Medicine, USA.
  • Meredith LS; RAND Corporation, USA.
  • Manuel JK; University of California, San Francisco, USA.
  • Becker K; RAND Corporation, USA.
  • Tarhuni L; University of Washington, USA.
  • Schoenbaum M; National Institute of Mental Health, USA.
  • Komaromy M; Boston University, USA.
  • Cassells A; Clinical Directors Network, Inc., USA.
  • Watkins KE; RAND Corporation, USA.
Evid Policy ; 20(1): 15-35, 2024 Feb.
Article de En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38911233
ABSTRACT

Background:

Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) within service systems is critical to population-level health improvements - but also challenging, especially for complex behavioral health interventions in low-resource settings. "Mis-implementation" refers to poor outcomes from an EBP implementation effort; mis-implementation outcomes are an important, but largely untapped, source of information about how to improve knowledge exchange. Aims and

objectives:

We present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioral health EBPs in U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).

Methods:

We adapted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and its Outcomes Addendum into a framework for mis-implementation and used it to structure the case summaries with information about the EBP and trial, mis-implementation outcomes, and associated determinants (barriers and facilitators). We compared the three cases to identify shared and unique mis-implementation factors.

Findings:

Across cases, there was limited adoption and fidelity to the interventions, which led to eventual discontinuation. Barriers contributing to mis-implementation included intervention complexity, low buy-in from overburdened providers, lack of alignment between providers and leadership, and COVID-19-related stressors. Mis-implementation occurred earlier in cases that experienced both patient- and provider-level barriers, and that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion and

conclusion:

Multi-level determinants contributed to EBP mis-implementation in FQHCs, limiting the ability of these health systems to benefit from knowledge exchange. To minimize mis-implementation, knowledge exchange strategies should be designed around common, core barriers but also flexible enough to address a variety of site-specific contextual factors and should be tailored to relevant audiences such as providers, patients, and/or leadership.
Mots clés

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Langue: En Journal: Evid Policy Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: États-Unis d'Amérique Pays de publication: Royaume-Uni

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Langue: En Journal: Evid Policy Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: États-Unis d'Amérique Pays de publication: Royaume-Uni