Acquisition of Information About Innovative Practices in Outpatient Mental Health Clinics.

This study uses qualitative interviews with leaders of 34 mental health clinics in the context of a statewide rollout of clinical and business innovations to explore how clinics first learn about innovations and which external sources of information they access. Clinic leaders reported accessing information about innovations mainly from government agencies, professional associations, peer organizations, and research literature. Leaders mentioned an average of two external sources of information. There was evidence of variation in how leaders accessed information and how information about innovations was communicated within clinics. Findings have implications for improving dissemination of information about innovations in mental health systems.

Correction to: Core Functions and Forms of Complex Health Interventions: a Patient-Centered Medical Home Illustration.

This paper was originally published without changes made in the correction process. It has been republished with correction.

Core Functions and Forms of Complex Health Interventions: a Patient-Centered Medical Home Illustration.

Despite policy and practice support to develop and test interventions designed to increase access to quality care among high-need patients, many of these interventions fail to meet expectations once deployed in real-life clinical settings. One example is the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model, designed to deliver coordinated care. A meta-analysis of PCMH initiatives found mixed evidence of impacts on service access, quality, and costs. Conceptualizing PCMH as a complex health intervention can generate insights into the mechanisms by which this model achieves its effects. It can also address heterogeneity by distinguishing PCMH core functions (the intervention's basic purposes) from forms (the strategies used to meet each function). We conducted a scoping review to identify core functions and forms documented in published PCMH models from 2007 to 2017. We analyzed and summarized the data to develop a PCMH Function and Form Matrix. The matrix contributes to the development of an explicit theory-based depiction of how an intervention achieves its effects, and can guide decision-support tools in the field. This innovative approach can support transformations of clinical settings and implementation efforts by building on a clear understanding of the intervention's standard core functions and the forms adapted to local contexts' characteristics.

'It's Like You Do It Without Knowing That You're Doing It': Practitioner Experiences with ACT Implementation.

Using a case study approach, this study explores the experiences of providers at three organizations identified by county mental health executives as exemplar programs that have received continued and competitive funding to deliver assertive community treatment (ACT) in a large urban county in California. Interviews were conducted with 37 participants including program directors (n = 4), frontline staff (n = 31), and county mental health executives (n = 2). Frontline provider perspectives reveal that, in many ways, teams appear to be working within an ACT model in the absence of detailed explicit knowledge about ACT's core components, frequent or in-depth conversations about ACT, or awareness of fidelity monitoring. Integration of program director and county executive perspectives illustrates how inner and outer contextual information can explain these on-the-ground ACT implementation experiences. This study illustrates the nuanced ways that frontline staff might understand and define evidence-based practice (EBP) use and has implications for studying EBP implementation.

Stakeholder Perceptions of the Barriers to Receiving and Delivering Exposure-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders in Adult Community Mental Health Settings.

CBT is considered the first-line treatment for anxiety disorders, particularly when it involves gradual confrontation with feared stimuli (i.e., exposure); however, delivery of CBT for anxiety disorders in real-world community clinics is lacking. This study utilized surveys we developed with key stakeholder feedback (patient, provider, and administrator) to assess patient and provider/administrator perceptions of the barriers to delivering (or receiving) CBT for anxiety disorders. Providers/administrators from two counties in California (N = 106) indicated lack of training/competency as primary barriers. Patients in one large county (N = 42) reported their own symptoms most often impacted treatment receipt. Both groups endorsed acceptability of exposure but indicated that its use in treatment provided/received had been limited. Implications and recommendations are discussed.

A Preliminary Exploration of the Barriers to Delivering (and Receiving) Exposure-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders in Adult Community Mental Health Settings.

Despite the effectiveness of exposure-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety disorders, few individuals in need receive this treatment, particularly in community mental health settings serving low-income adults. The present study took a preliminary step to understand these barriers by conducting a series of key informant interviews and focus groups among patients, providers, clinical administrators, and policy makers. Several themes emerged as barriers to the delivery of exposure-based CBT in these settings, including therapist training and compentency issues, logistical issues, and funding stream issues. Clinical implications and future research that can build from these data are discussed.

Do learning collaboratives strengthen communication? A comparison of organizational team communication networks over time.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative learning models were designed to support quality improvements, such as innovation implementation by promoting communication within organizational teams. Yet the effect of collaborative learning approaches on organizational team communication during implementation is untested. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore change in communication patterns within teams from children's mental health organizations during a year-long learning collaborative focused on implementing a new treatment. We adopt a social network perspective to examine intraorganizational communication within each team and assess change in (a) the frequency of communication among team members, (b) communication across organizational hierarchies, and (c) the overall structure of team communication networks. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A pretest-posttest design compared communication among 135 participants from 21 organizational teams at the start and end of a learning collaborative. At both time points, participants were asked to list the members of their team and rate the frequency of communication with each along a 7-point Likert scale. Several individual, pair-wise, and team level communication network metrics were calculated and compared over time. FINDINGS: At the individual level, participants reported communicating with more team members by the end of the learning collaborative. Cross-hierarchical communication did not change. At the team level, these changes manifested differently depending on team size. In large teams, communication frequency increased, and networks grew denser and slightly less centralized. In small teams, communication frequency declined, growing more sparse and centralized. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results suggest that team communication patterns change minimally but evolve differently depending on size. Learning collaboratives may be more helpful for enhancing communication among larger teams; thus, managers might consider selecting and sending larger staff teams to learning collaboratives. This study highlights key future research directions that can disentangle the relationship between learning collaboratives and team networks.

Social Networking Technology Use and Engagement in HIV-Related Risk and Protective Behaviors Among Homeless Youth.

Preliminary studies with homeless youth have found surprisingly pervasive social media use and suggest that youth's online interactions may be associated with their HIV-related risk and protective behaviors. As homeless youth are transient and difficult to engage in place-based services, social media may represent a novel venue for intervention. A critical 1st step in intervention development is gaining greater understanding of how homeless youth use social media, especially as it relates to who they connect to and around what topics. Given the salience of social networking sites in the lives of these otherwise difficult-to-reach adolescents, and their potential to disseminate prevention interventions, this study assessed associations between online social networking technology use and HIV risk behaviors among homeless youth in Los Angeles, California. Homeless youth ages 13 through 24 (N = 1,046) were recruited through 3 drop-in centers and surveyed about their social media use and self-reported HIV-related risk behaviors. Results suggest that social media use is widely prevalent among this population, and the content of these online interactions is associated with whether youth engage in risk or protective behaviors. Implications for interventions and further research are discussed.

The Medicaid expansion gap and racial and ethnic minorities with substance use disorders.

We compared the race and ethnicity of individuals residing in states that did and did not expand Medicaid in 2014. Findings indicated that African Americans and Native Americans with substance use disorders who met new federal eligibility criteria for Medicaid were less likely than those of other racial and ethnic groups to live in states that expanded Medicaid. These findings suggest that the uneven expansion of Medicaid may exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in insurance coverage for substance use disorder treatment.

Leadership and Licensure for Drug Treatment and the Implementation of Co-Occurring Disorder Treatment in Community Mental Health Centers.

Using a random sample of 48 outpatient mental health programs in low-income and racial and ethnic minority communities, this study examined directorial leadership, drug treatment licensure, and implementation of evidence-based protocols and practices to address co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders (COD). Understanding of findings was enhanced with focus groups at six clinics. Most programs (81 %) offered COD treatment. Directorial leadership was positively associated with COD treatment (ß = 0.253, p = 0.047, 95 % CI 0.003, 0.502) and COD supervision and training (ß = 0.358, p = 0.002, 95 % CI 0.142, 0.575). Licensure was negatively associated with COD treatment (ß = -0.235, p = 0.041, 95 % CI -0.460, -0.010) and COD supervision and training (ß = -0.195, p = 0.049, 95 % CI -0.389, -0.001). Although lack of financial integration may limit the effect of licensing on COD treatment implementation, the response of leaders to regulation, funding, and human resources issues may encourage COD treatment practices. Implications for leadership interventions and policy are discussed in the context of health care reform.

Who's "in the room where it happens"? A taxonomy and five-step methodology for identifying and characterizing policy actors.

BACKGROUND: Engaging policy actors in research design and execution is critical to increasing the practical relevance and real-world impact of policy-focused dissemination and implementation science. Identifying and selecting which policy actors to engage, particularly actors involved in "Big P" public policies such as laws, is distinct from traditional engaged research methods. This current study aimed to develop a transparent, structured method for iteratively identifying policy actors involved in key policy decisions-such as adopting evidence-based interventions at systems-scale-and to guide implementation study sampling and engagement approaches. A flexible policy actor taxonomy was developed to supplement existing methods and help identify policy developers, disseminators, implementers, enforcers, and influencers. METHODS: A five-step methodology for identifying policy actors to potentially engage in policy dissemination and implementation research was developed. Leveraging a recent federal policy as a case study-The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)-publicly available documentation (e.g., websites, reports) were searched, retrieved, and coded using content analysis to characterize the organizations and individual policy actors in the "room" during policy decisions. RESULTS: The five steps are as follows: (1) clarify the policy implementation phase(s) of interest, (2) identify relevant proverbial or actual policymaking "rooms," (3) identify and characterize organizations in the room, (4) identify and characterize policy actors in the "room," and (5) quantify (e.g., count actors across groups), summarize, and compare "rooms" to develop or select engagement approaches aligned with the "room" and actors. The use and outcomes of each step are exemplified through the FFPSA case study. CONCLUSIONS: The pragmatic and transparent policy actor identification steps presented here can guide researchers' methods for continuous sampling and successful policy actor engagement. Future work should explore the utility of the proposed methods for guiding selection and tailoring of engagement and implementation strategies (e.g., research-policy actor partnerships) to improve both "Big P" and "little p" (administrative guidelines, procedures) policymaking and implementation in global contexts.

Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Proctor and colleagues' 2011 paper proposed a taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes and challenged the field to address a research agenda focused on conceptualization, measurement, and theory building. Ten years later, this paper maps the field's progress in implementation outcomes research. This scoping review describes how each implementation outcome has been studied, research designs and methods used, and the contexts and settings represented in the current literature. We also describe the role of implementation outcomes in relation to implementation strategies and other outcomes. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews guided our methods. Using forward citation tracing, we identified all literature citing the 2011 paper. We conducted our search in the Web of Science (WOS) database and added citation alerts sent to the first author from the publisher for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. This produced 1346 titles and abstracts. Initial abstract screening yielded 480 manuscripts, and full-text review yielded 400 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria (empirical assessment of at least one implementation outcome). RESULTS: Slightly more than half (52.1%) of included manuscripts examined acceptability. Fidelity (39.3%), feasibility (38.6%), adoption (26.5%), and appropriateness (21.8%) were also commonly examined. Penetration (16.0%), sustainability (15.8%), and cost (7.8%) were less frequently examined. Thirty-two manuscripts examined implementation outcomes not included in the original taxonomy. Most studies took place in healthcare (45.8%) or behavioral health (22.5%) organizations. Two-thirds used observational designs. We found little evidence of progress in testing the relationships between implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, leaving us ill-prepared to know how to achieve implementation success. Moreover, few studies tested the impact of implementation outcomes on other important outcome types, such as service systems and improved individual or population health. CONCLUSIONS: Our review presents a comprehensive snapshot of the research questions being addressed by existing implementation outcomes literature and reveals the need for rigorous, analytic research and tests of strategies for attaining implementation outcomes in the next 10 years of outcomes research.

Eight characteristics of rigorous multilevel implementation research: a step-by-step guide.

BACKGROUND: Although healthcare is delivered in inherently multilevel contexts, implementation science has no widely endorsed methodological standards defining the characteristics of rigorous, multilevel implementation research. We identify and describe eight characteristics of high-quality, multilevel implementation research to encourage discussion, spur debate, and guide decision-making around study design and methodological issues. RECOMMENDATIONS: Implementation researchers who conduct rigorous multilevel implementation research demonstrate the following eight characteristics. First, they map and operationalize the specific multilevel context for defined populations and settings. Second, they define and state the level of each construct under study. Third, they describe how constructs relate to each other within and across levels. Fourth, they specify the temporal scope of each phenomenon at each relevant level. Fifth, they align measurement choices and construction of analytic variables with the levels of theories selected (and hypotheses generated, if applicable). Sixth, they use a sampling strategy consistent with the selected theories or research objectives and sufficiently large and variable to examine relationships at requisite levels. Seventh, they align analytic approaches with the chosen theories (and hypotheses, if applicable), ensuring that they account for measurement dependencies and nested data structures. Eighth, they ensure inferences are made at the appropriate level. To guide implementation researchers and encourage debate, we present the rationale for each characteristic, actionable recommendations for operationalizing the characteristics in implementation research, a range of examples, and references to make the characteristics more usable. Our recommendations apply to all types of multilevel implementation study designs and approaches, including randomized trials, quantitative and qualitative observational studies, and mixed methods. CONCLUSION: These eight characteristics provide benchmarks for evaluating the quality and replicability of multilevel implementation research and promote a common language and reference points. This, in turn, facilitates knowledge generation across diverse multilevel settings and ensures that implementation research is consistent with (and appropriately leverages) what has already been learned in allied multilevel sciences. When a shared and integrated description of what constitutes rigor is defined and broadly communicated, implementation science is better positioned to innovate both methodologically and theoretically.

Rapid adaptation during the COVID crisis: Challenges experienced in delivering service to those with Opioid Use Disorders.

Background: Adaptation is an accepted part of implementing evidence-based practices. COVID-19 presented a unique opportunity to examine adaptation in evolving contexts. Delivering service to people with opioid use disorder during the pandemic required significant adaptation due to revised regulations and limited service access. This report evaluated changes to addiction medication services caused by the pandemic, challenges encountered in rapidly adapting service delivery, and initial impressions of which changes might be sustainable over time. Methods: Qualitatively-evaluated structured interviews (N = 20) were conducted in late 2020 with key informants in Pinellas County (FL) to assess the pandemic's impact. Interviewees represented a cross-section of the professional groups including direct SUD/HIV service providers, and sheriff's office, Department of Health, and regional clinical program administrative staff. The interview questions examined significant changes necessitated by the pandemic, challenges encountered in adapting to this evolving context, and considerations for sustained change. Results: The most significant changes to service delivery identified were rapid adaptation to a telehealth format, and modifying service consistent with SAMHSA guidance, to allow for 'take-home' doses of methadone. Limitations imposed by access to technology, and the retraining of staff and patients to give and receive service differently were the most common themes identified as challenging adaptation efforts. Respondents saw shifts towards telehealth as most likely to being sustained. Conclusions: COVID-19 provided an unprecedented opportunity to examine adaptation in a fast-paced, dynamic, and evolving context. Adaptations identified will only be sustained through multisystem collaboration and validation. Results suggest that additional components could be added to implementation frameworks to assess rapid adaptation during unplanned events, such as access to additional resources or local decision-making that impacts service delivery. Findings will also be integrated with quantitative data to help inform local policy decisions. Plain Language Summary: Adaptation is an accepted part of implementing evidencebased practices. COVID-19 presented a unique opportunity to examine rapid adaptation necessitated within evolving contexts. Delivering services to people with opioid use disorder required significant adaptation due to changing regulations and limited access to lifesaving services. This study examined changes in service delivery due to the pandemic, challenges encountered in rapid adaptation, and initial impressions of which changes might be sustainable over time. Qualitatively-evaluated structured interviews were conducted with a cross-section of professional groups (direct substance use disorder (SUD) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) service providers, and sheriff's office, Department of Health, and clinical program administrative staff) in Pinellas County (FL). The most significant changes to service delivery were rapid adaptation to a telehealth format and increased allowance for 'takehome' doses of methadone medication. Limitations imposed by access to technology, as well as the education of and staff and patients were the most common themes identified as challenges. Respondents saw shifts towards telehealth as most likely to be sustained. COVID-19 provided an unprecedented opportunity to examine adaptation in a fast-paced, dynamic, and evolving context. Adaptations will only be sustained through multisystem collaboration and validation. Findings suggest that additional components could be added to implementation frameworks to assess rapid adaptation during unplanned events, such as access to additional resources or local decision-making that impacts service delivery.

Where is "policy" in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science aims to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based interventions. However, implementation science has had too little focus on the role of health policy - and its inseparable politics, polity structures, and policymakers - in the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based healthcare. Policies can serve as determinants, implementation strategies, the evidence-based "thing" to be implemented, or another variable in the causal pathway to healthcare access, quality, and patient outcomes. Research describing the roles of policy in dissemination and implementation (D&I) efforts is needed to resolve persistent knowledge gaps about policymakers' evidence use, how evidence-based policies are implemented and sustained, and methods to de-implement policies that are ineffective or cause harm. Few D&I theories, models, or frameworks (TMF) explicitly guide researchers in conceptualizing where, how, and when policy should be empirically investigated. We conducted and reflected on the results of a scoping review to identify gaps of existing Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework-guided policy D&I studies. We argue that rather than creating new TMF, researchers should optimize existing TMF to examine policy's role in D&I. We describe six recommendations to help researchers optimize existing D&I TMF. Recommendations are applied to EPIS, as one example for advancing TMF for policy D&I. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Specify dimensions of a policy's function (policy goals, type, contexts, capital exchanged). (2) Specify dimensions of a policy's form (origin, structure, dynamism, outcomes). (3) Identify and define the nonlinear phases of policy D&I across outer and inner contexts. (4) Describe the temporal roles that stakeholders play in policy D&I over time. (5) Consider policy-relevant outer and inner context adaptations. (6) Identify and describe bridging factors necessary for policy D&I success. CONCLUSION: Researchers should use TMF to meaningfully conceptualize policy's role in D&I efforts to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based policies or practices and de-implement ineffective and harmful policies. Applying these six recommendations to existing D&I TMF advances existing theoretical knowledge, especially EPIS application, rather than introducing new models. Using these recommendations will sensitize researchers to help them investigate the multifaceted roles policy can play within a causal pathway leading to D&I success.

Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting.

BACKGROUND: Implementation outcomes research spans an exciting mix of fields, disciplines, and geographical space. Although the number of studies that cite the 2011 taxonomy has expanded considerably, the problem of harmony in describing outcomes persists. This paper revisits that problem by focusing on the clarity of reporting outcomes in studies that examine them. Published recommendations for improved reporting and specification have proven to be an important step in enhancing the rigor of implementation research. We articulate reporting problems in the current implementation outcomes literature and describe six practical recommendations that address them. RECOMMENDATIONS: Our first recommendation is to clearly state each implementation outcome and provide a definition that the study will consistently use. This includes providing an explanation if using the taxonomy in a new way or merging terms. Our second recommendation is to specify how each implementation outcome will be analyzed relative to other constructs. Our third recommendation is to specify "the thing" that each implementation outcome will be measured in relation to. This is especially important if you are concurrently studying interventions and strategies, or if you are studying interventions and strategies that have multiple components. Our fourth recommendation is to report who will provide data and the level at which data will be collected for each implementation outcome, and to report what kind of data will be collected and used to assess each implementation outcome. Our fifth recommendation is to state the number of time points and frequency at which each outcome will be measured. Our sixth recommendation is to state the unit of observation and the level of analysis for each implementation outcome. CONCLUSION: This paper advances implementation outcomes research in two ways. First, we illustrate elements of the 2011 research agenda with concrete examples drawn from a wide swath of current literature. Second, we provide six pragmatic recommendations for improved reporting. These recommendations are accompanied by an audit worksheet and a list of exemplar articles that researchers can use when designing, conducting, and assessing implementation outcomes studies.

Inter-agency collaboration is associated with increased frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the self-report frequency of inter-agency collaboration about children's mental health issues is associated with the self-report frequency of using research evidence in children's mental health policy and program decision making in mental health agencies (MHAs). DATA SOURCES: Primary data were collected through web-based surveys of state (N = 221) and county (N = 117) MHA officials. DESIGN: The primary independent variable was a composite score quantifying the frequency of collaboration about children's mental health issues between officials in MHAs and six other state agencies. The dependent variables were composite scores quantifying the frequency of research use in children's mental health policy and program decision making in general and for specific purposes (i.e., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, imposed). Covariates were composite scores quantifying well-established determinants of research use (e.g., agency leadership, research use skills) in agency policy and program decision making. DATA METHODS: Separate multiple linear regression models estimated associations between frequency of inter-agency collaboration and research use scores, adjusting for other determinants of research use, respondent state, and other covariates. Data from state and county officials were analyzed separately. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The frequency of inter-agency collaboration was positively and independently associated with the frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making among state (ß = 0.22, p = 0.004) and county (ß = 0.39, p < 0.0001) MHA officials. Inter-agency collaboration was also the only variable significantly associated with the frequency of research use for all four specific purposes among state MHA officials, and similar findings we observed among county MHA officials. The magnitudes of associations between inter-agency collaboration and frequency of research use were generally stronger than for more well-established determinants of research use in policy making. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies that promote collaboration between MHA officials and external agencies could increase the use of research evidence in children's mental health policy and program decision making in MHAs.

Conceptual tensions and practical trade-offs in tailoring implementation interventions.

Tailored interventions have been shown to be effective and tailoring is a popular process with intuitive appeal for researchers and practitioners. However, the concept and process are ill-defined in implementation science. Descriptions of how tailoring has been applied in practice are often absent or insufficient in detail. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to synthesize and replicate efforts. It also hides the trade-offs for researchers and practitioners that are inherent in the process. In this article we juxtapose the growing prominence of tailoring with four key questions surrounding the process. Specifically, we ask: (1) what constitutes tailoring and when does it begin and end?; (2) how is it expected to work?; (3) who and what does the tailoring process involve?; and (4) how should tailoring be evaluated? We discuss these questions as a call to action for better reporting and further research to bring clarity, consistency, and coherence to tailoring, a key process in implementation science.

A randomized controlled trial in schools aimed at exploring mechanisms of change of a multifaceted implementation strategy for promoting mental health at the workplace.

BACKGROUND: This study will explore implementation mechanisms through which a single implementation strategy and a multifaceted implementation strategy operate to affect the implementation outcome, which is fidelity to the Guideline For The Prevention of Mental Ill Health within schools. The guideline gives recommendations on how workplaces can prevent mental ill health among their personnel by managing social and organizational risks factors in the work environment. Schools are chosen as the setting for the study due to the high prevalence of mental ill health among teachers and other personnel working in schools. The study builds on our previous research, in which we compared the effectiveness of the two strategies on fidelity to the guideline. Small improvements in guideline adherence were observed for the majority of the indicators in the multifaceted strategy group. This study will focus on exploring the underlying mechanisms of change through which the implementation strategies may operate to affect the implementation outcome. METHODS: We will conduct a cluster-randomized-controlled trial among public schools (n=55 schools) in Sweden. Schools are randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive a multifaceted strategy (implementation teams, educational meeting, ongoing training, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) or a single strategy (implementation teams, educational meeting). The implementation outcome is fidelity to the guideline. Hypothesized mediators originate from the COM-B model. A mixed-method design will be employed, entailing a qualitative study of implementation process embedded within the cluster-randomized controlled trail examining implementation mechanisms. The methods will be used in a complementary manner to get a full understanding of the implementation mechanisms. DISCUSSION: This implementation study will provide valuable knowledge on how implementation strategies work (or fail) to affect implementation outcomes. The knowledge gained will aid the selection of effective implementation strategies that fit specific determinants, which is a priority for the field. Despite recent initiatives to advance the understanding of implementation mechanisms, studies testing these mechanisms are still uncommon. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org dr.nr 2020-01214.

Understanding implementation research collaborations from a co-creation lens: Recommendations for a path forward.

Increasing calls within the field of implementation science (IS) research seek to promote active engagement of diverse and often disenfranchised stakeholder voices to increase buy-in, fidelity, outcome relevance, and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Including such voices requires cultural humility and the integration of multiple perspectives and values among organizations, groups, and individuals. However, the IS field lacks guidance for researchers on structuring collaborative approaches to promote a co-created process (i.e., synergistic approach to goal attainment). We contend that improved operationalization of co-created implementation collaborations is critical to sparking synergy and addressing differentials based on power, privilege, knowledge, and access to resources among stakeholders. These differentials can undermine future implementation and sustainment efforts if not addressed early in the research effort. An insufficient understanding of the guiding principles of co-created implementation collaborations may limit the scientific value of evaluation processes, and researchers' ability to replicate outcomes. We propose a perspective foregrounded in the concept of co-creation to guide the structuring of implementation collaboratives through five principles. We offer three case examples informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) Framework to illustrate the application of these co-creation principles. Lastly, we offer recommendations for promoting co-creation in IS research moving forward.