Outer context factors that may influence the adoption phase include legislation (e.g., definitions of evidence), funding (e.g., systems providing support for the adoption of a particular EBP), client advocacy (e.g., lawsuits such as Felix Consent Decree; Chorpita & Donkervoet, 2005), and interorganizational networks (e.g., networking with other agencies within a system implementing EBPs). Saldana and colleagues (this issue) discuss a partnership in which the New York City child welfare system engaged treatment developers to develop and pilot an innovative approach to improving the interactions between supervisors, caseworkers, and caregivers. The aforementioned article by Walker and colleagues (this issue) addresses this phase most explicitly by showing how Geographic Information Systems mapping can be useful in exploring high priority community targets for implementation investments. These inner and outer context factors may propel an organization to consider alternative service delivery approaches.
Section 2: Validation strategies
Due to a dearth of specialist mental healthcare providers in many LMIC, much of the growing evidence base has focused on treatment approaches delivered by lay health workers. Most of the mental health policies were national development strategies that aimed at decentralisation and deinstitutionalisation of mental healthcare and establishing community-based systems. Quantitative tool for dissemination and implementation questions including the vignette based on community mental health services in English. This study describes the use of a novel approach to testing the reliability and validity of implementation science measure examining multiple D&I constructs in global mental health research. Use of these methods could provide a widely generalizable process to develop locally relevant and valid implementation measures to facilitate global mental health implementation science research.
Mental and Behavioral Health Services and Implementation
- We propose that the consideration of mental models may be a unique lens through which to view implementation research and may benefit the field if further explored and utilized.
- One study used health claims data to assess implementation by clinicians employed by mental health agencies (Brookman-Frazee et al., 2018).
- Further research in these areas will become feasible as the mhIST are more widely adopted within global mental health research.
- Eligible articles included any type of review that presented challenges, barriers, or facilitators to implementing interventions for common and severe mental disorders, substance use disorders, or mental disorders more generally in low- and middle-income countries.
- In other cases, MH apps are offered free of charge with the intention of having broader public health impacts (e.g., Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) apps, Gould et al. 2019; Owen et al. 2018).
The needis especially acute for communities with greater social disadvantage, where a highprevalence of risk factors for child and adolescent mental health problems, includingpoverty, women’s disempowerment, and maternal mental disorder particularly callfor preventative interventions. However, thearticle also shows the field’s current focus on clinic-based mental healthinterventions delivered by mental health professionals for youth with mental healthproblems. Ashley Knapp’s research is focused on youth digital mental health broadly, with a particular interest in designing and implementing accessible, community-based digital tools with marginalized youth and those youth most experiencing inequities. Our epidemiologic studies identify risk and protective factors needed to address the unique mental health and substance use needs of patients and community populations.
These examples of post-assessment changes enacted by the agency during the early implementation stages of the project illustrate the usability of the pre-implementation assessment process and how it can help agency leaders make decisions and chart the course of implementation for their respective initiatives and projects. Finally, participants requested open and regular communication from project staff and leadership about project goals and expectations (e.g., timelines), as well as processes to systematically examine implementation progress and improve on the project in real time. Given the high rates of turnover reported by participants, they believed that project staff needed to have an action plan for when CSOs or their behavioral health counterparts are promoted or reassigned. Further, participants indicated that the project team anticipates staff turnover in both provider and community supervision agencies. Second, participants believed that successfully implementing these strategies would require leadership engagement at all levels — from agency supervisors to statewide administrators.
Second, selecting an appropriate EBT ensures that the chosen intervention aligns with the clinical setting and population needs. One point of consideration for further transparency regrading the limitations would be to change “North America” to “United States” when referring to this limitation, as it appears no https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26809/chapter/5 Canadian or Mexican experts or investigators were included in the study. Though my concerns remain regarding the predominance of US-based perspectives captured in this work given that its emphasis is on GMH and LMICs, I do believe it’s a valuable starting point in advancing quantitative implementation measurement. The GACD specifically funds implementation science research in LMICs and is made up a consortium of funding agencies from a diverse array of countries including some LMICs. Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting.
Findings of evaluations demonstrated that implementation of MHPPs in terms of target achievement or types of programmes adopted was most often partial. Studies assessing the progress of implementation usually collected data through qualitative and quantitative questionnaires enquiring about progress or level of implementation against policy targets or goals. Usually, the format of such studies allows for situation analysis and a more detailed description of methodology to be included.
With the exception of two, all studies investigated single countries only. Twenty-three studies were published in HICs and only four in LMICs. Only 10 studies provided rationale or details about the tools they employed of which three were available (Doku et al., 2008; Draper et al., 2009; Bikker et al., 2020) (see Supplementary Material). One study used a manualised case study methodology to organise and integrate data from various sources across domains of interest.