Variation in Stakeholder Preferences for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Behavioral Health Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The authors examined whether stakeholders in behavioral health care differ in their preferences for strategies that support the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs).Methods
Using data collected in March and April 2019 in a survey of stakeholders in Philadelphia Medicaid’s behavioral health care system, the authors compared empirical Bayes preference weights for implementation strategies across clinicians, supervisors, agency executives, and payers.Results
Preferences for implementation strategies overlapped among the stakeholders (N=357 survey respondents). Financial incentives were consistently ranked as most useful and performance feedback as the least useful for implementing EBPs. However, areas of divergence were identified. For example, payers preferred compensation for EBP delivery, whereas clinicians considered compensation for time spent on preparing for EBPs as equally useful.Conclusions
The observed variation in stakeholder preferences for strategies to implement EBPs may shed light on why the ongoing shift from volume to value in behavioral health care has had mixed results.
SUBMITTER: Candon M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9500117 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Variation in Stakeholder Preferences for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Behavioral Health Care.
Candon Molly M Williams Nathaniel N Zentgraf Kelly K Buttenheim Alison A Bewtra Meenakshi M Beidas Rinad S RS Stewart Rebecca E RE
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20220323 11
<h4>Objective</h4>The authors examined whether stakeholders in behavioral health care differ in their preferences for strategies that support the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs).<h4>Methods</h4>Using data collected in March and April 2019 in a survey of stakeholders in Philadelphia Medicaid’s behavioral health care system, the authors compared empirical Bayes preference weights for implementation strategies across clinicians, supervisors, agency executives, and payers.<h4>Resul ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCommunity behavioral health clinicians, supervisors, and administrators play an essential role in implementing new psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBP) for patients receiving psychiatric care; however, little is known about these stakeholders' values and preferences for implementation strategies that support EBP use, nor how best to elicit, quantify, or segment their preferences. This study sought to quantify these stakeholders' preferences for implementation strategies and to identify segments of stakeholders with distinct preferences using a rigorous choice experiment method called best-worst scaling.MethodsA total of 240 clinicians, 74 clinical supervisors, and 29 administrators employed within clinics delivering publicly-funded behavioral health services in a large metropolitan behavioral health system participated in a best-worst scaling choice experiment. Participants evaluated 14 implementation strategies developed through extensive elicitation and pilot work within the target system. Preference weights were generated for each strategy using hierarchical Bayesian estimation. Latent class analysis identified segments of stakeholders with unique preference profiles.ResultsOn average, stakeholders preferred two strategies significantly more than all others-compensation for use of EBP per session and compensation for preparation time to use the EBP (P < .05); two strategies were preferred significantly less than all others-performance feedback via email and performance feedback via leaderboard (P < .05). However, latent class analysis identified four distinct segments of stakeholders with unique preferences: Segment 1 (n = 121, 35%) strongly preferred financial incentives over all other approaches and included more administrators; Segment 2 (n = 80, 23%) preferred technology-based strategies and was younger, on average; Segment 3 (n = 52, 15%) preferred an improved waiting room to enhance client readiness, strongly disliked any type of clinical consultation, and had the lowest participation in local EBP training initiatives; Segment 4 (n = 90, 26%) strongly preferred clinical consultation strategies and included more clinicians in substance use clinics.ConclusionsThe presence of four heterogeneous subpopulations within this large group of clinicians, supervisors, and administrators suggests optimal implementation may be achieved through targeted strategies derived via elicitation of stakeholder preferences. Best-worst scaling is a feasible and rigorous method for eliciting stakeholders' implementation preferences and identifying subpopulations with unique preferences in behavioral health settings.
| S-EPMC7863375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this research was to apply a new methodology (population-level cost-effectiveness analysis) to determine the value of implementing an evidence-based practice in routine care.Data are from sequentially conducted studies: a randomized controlled trial and an implementation trial of collaborative care for depression. Both trials were conducted in the same practice setting and population (primary care patients prescribed antidepressants).The study combined results from a randomized controlled trial and a pre-post-quasi-experimental implementation trial.The randomized controlled trial collected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from survey and medication possession ratios (MPRs) from administrative data. The implementation trial collected MPRs and intervention costs from administrative data and implementation costs from survey.In the randomized controlled trial, MPRs were significantly correlated with QALYs (p = .03). In the implementation trial, patients at implementation sites had significantly higher MPRs (p = .01) than patients at control sites, and by extrapolation higher QALYs (0.00188). Total costs (implementation, intervention) were nonsignificantly higher ($63.76) at implementation sites. The incremental population-level cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,905.92/QALY (bootstrap interquartile range -$45,343.10/QALY to $99,260.90/QALY).The methodology was feasible to operationalize and gave reasonable estimates of implementation value.
| S-EPMC4254127 | biostudies-other
Project description:To assess the role of value-based payment (VBP) in improving fidelity and patient outcomes in community implementation of an evidence-based mental health intervention, the Collaborative Care Model (CCM).Retrospective study based on a natural experiment.We used the clinical tracking data of 1806 adult patients enrolled in a large implementation of the CCM in community health clinics in Washington state. VBP was initiated in year 2 of the program, creating a natural experiment. We compared implementation fidelity (measured by 3 process-of-care elements of the CCM) between patient-months exposed to VBP and patient-months not exposed to VBP. A series of regressions were estimated to check robustness of findings. We estimated a Cox proportional hazard model to assess the effect of VBP on time to achieving clinically significant improvement in depression (measured based on changes in depression symptom scores over time).Estimated marginal effects of VBP on fidelity ranged from 9% to 30% of the level of fidelity had there been no exposure to VBP (P <.05 for every fidelity measure). Improvement in fidelity in response to VBP was greater among providers with a larger patient panel and among providers with a lower level of fidelity at baseline. Exposure to VBP was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.03) for achieving clinically significant improvement in depression.VBP improved fidelity to key elements of the CCM, both directly incentivized and not explicitly incentivized by the VBP, and improved patient depression outcomes.
| S-EPMC5559616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Implementation experts suggest tailoring strategies to the intended context may enhance outcomes. However, it remains unclear which strategies are best suited to address specific barriers to implementation, in part because few measurement methods exist that adhere to recommendations for reporting. In the context of a dynamic cluster randomized trial comparing a standardized to tailored approach to implementing measurement-based care (MBC), this study aimed to (a) describe a method for tracking implementation strategies, (b) demonstrate the method by tracking strategies generated by teams tasked with implementing MBC at their clinics in the tailored condition, and (c) conduct preliminary examinations of the relation between strategy use and implementation outcomes (i.e., self-reported fidelity to MBC). The method consisted of a coding form based on Proctor, Powell, and McMillen (2013) implementation strategy reporting guidelines and Powell et al.'s (2012) taxonomy to facilitate specification of the strategies. A trained research specialist coded digitally recorded implementation team meetings. The method allowed for the following characterization of strategy use. Each site generated 39 unique strategies across an average of six meetings in five months. There was little variability in the use of types of implementation strategies across sites with the following order of prevalence: quality management (50.00%), restructuring (16.53%), communication (15.68%), education (8.90%), planning (7.20%), and financing (1.69%). We identified a new category of strategies not captured by the existing taxonomy, labeled "communication." There was no evidence that number of implementation strategies enacted was statistically significantly associated with changes in self-reported fidelity to MBC-however, financing strategies were associated with increased fidelity. This method has the capacity to yield rich data that will inform investigations into tailored implementation approaches.
| S-EPMC6020155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite the benefits of measurement-based care (MBC) in the behavioral health setting, there have been difficulties in implementation and low saturation. Although barriers and facilitators to MBC implementation have been identified, research has generally only included the perspective of one stakeholder group. The current study aims to examine the similarities and differences-by stakeholder group-in the identified barriers to and facilitators of implementing MBC in the behavioral health setting.MethodA purposeful sampling approach was used to recruit and conduct interviews and focus groups with stakeholders (clinicians, clinic leaders, and administrative staff) from four behavioral health clinics at an academic medical center that is part of a larger healthcare system. The data coding process included a directed content analytic approach whereby the coding team used an iterative process to analyze deidentified transcripts starting with a codebook based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs.ResultsA total of 31 clinicians, 11 clinic leaders, and 8 administrative staff participated in the interviews and focus groups. There was convergence among all stakeholder regarding which CFIR constructs were identified as barriers and facilitators, but there were differences in the specific thematic factors identified by stakeholders as barriers and facilitators within each of these implementation constructs. The barriers and facilitators that stakeholders identified within each CFIR construct were often connected to their specific role in implementing MBC.ConclusionCollecting information on barriers and facilitators to MBC implementation from the multiple stakeholders involved in the process may enhance successful implementation of MBC given the variation between groups in identified thematic factors. Administrative staff perspectives, which have not been reported in the literature, may be of particular importance in planning for successful MBC implementation.
| S-EPMC10923014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical preventive services, such as screening tests, vaccinations, behavioral counseling, or preventive medication, are offered to most people on the basis of age, sex, health behaviors, or clinical risk factors, with goals of detecting early disease, preventing future disease, or mitigating the impact of unhealthy behaviors on future health. However, many people do not receive all the recommended services for which they are eligible.MethodsThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality identified 4 topics for gathering stakeholder input on evidence and implementation for the equitable delivery of clinical preventive services. These included technology, innovative delivery models, public health linkages, and disparities. For each topic, the authors conducted an environmental scan to identify existing programs or interventions to promote the delivery of clinical preventive services, a technical expert panel meeting, and key informant interviews. The authors synthesized input from each topic's technical expert panel and key informant interviews and used inductive reasoning to identify themes. Within each overarching theme, the authors identified subthemes supported by specific statements, examples, and illustrative quotes.ResultsA total of 90 individuals participated on stakeholder panels, technical expert panels, or key informant interviews; some individuals participated in multiple roles. Across the topics, the authors identified 3 overarching themes from synthesis of the technical expert panel and key informant interview comments across topics: (1) transitioning to holistic healthcare delivery and financing models, (2) including community and patient voice in healthcare system design, and (3) leveraging technology to improve clinical preventive services delivery.ConclusionsPromoting the equitable delivery of clinical preventive services requires improving access to primary care but also expanding efforts beyond clinical settings to encompass public health and community infrastructure and engagement. Experts recommended that person-centered preventive care should empower patients to make informed decisions about clinical preventive services on the basis of their values, risks, and preferences. This more individualized approach tailored to needs and context may reduce barriers to receipt of clinical preventive services.
| S-EPMC11880699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMiddle managers are in a unique position to promote the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in healthcare organizations, yet knowledge of middle managers' role in implementation and determinants (e.g., individual-, organizational-, and system-level factors) which influence their role remains fractured, spanning decades and disciplines. To synthesize understanding, we undertook a systematic review of studies of middle managers' role in healthcare EBP implementation and determinants of that role.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Business Source Complete (Ebsco) for literature on middle managers' role in healthcare EBP implementation and its determinants. We abstracted data from records that met inclusion criteria (i.e., written in English, peer-reviewed, and reporting either a protocol or results of an empirical study) into a matrix for analysis. We summarized categorical variables using descriptive statistics. To analyze qualitative data, we used a priori codes and then allowed additional themes to emerge.ResultsOne hundred five records, spanning across several countries and healthcare settings and relating to a range of EBPs, met our inclusion criteria. Studies of middle managers' role in healthcare EBP implementation and its determinants substantially increased from 1996 to 2015. Results from included studies suggest that middle managers shape implementation climate in addition to fulfilling the four roles hypothesized in extant theory of middle managers' role in implementation. However, extant studies offered little understanding of determinants of middle managers' role.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that middle managers may play an important role in facilitating EBP implementation. Included studies offered little understanding regarding the relative importance of various roles, potential moderators of the relationship between middle managers' roles and EBP implementation, or determinants of middle managers' role in EBP implementation. Future studies should seek to understand determinants and moderators of middle managers' role. Clearer understanding may facilitate the translation of evidence into practice.
| S-EPMC6292008 | biostudies-literature
Project description:People with disabilities face a number of barriers to accessing and participating in evidence-based health promotion programs offered within the community. To address these barriers, the program implementation process needs to integrate disability inclusion throughout planning and implementation. The National Center on Health, Physical Activity and Disability's inclusive Community Implementation Process (NiCIP) provides a framework for implementers to systematically integrate strategies into their health promotion programs that increase inclusion while maintaining the fidelity the program. The NiCIP is a community-engaged process that brings key stakeholders together to guide the selection and implementation of data-driven solutions that promote inclusion in, and access to, health promotion programs. In this article, we first provide an overview of the NiCIP. Then, we present a case study exploring one community's experience using the NiCIP to implement a disability inclusive nutrition program within their community.
| S-EPMC10390329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are up to twice as likely to suffer from anxiety and/or depression. Collaborative care management (CoCM) is an evidence-based approach to treating behavioral health disorders that have proven effective for a range of conditions in primary care and some specialty settings. This model involves a team-based approach, with care delivered by a care manager (case reviews and behavioral therapy), psychiatrist (case reviews and psychopharmacological recommendations), and medical provider (ongoing care including psychopharmacological prescriptions). We assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of CoCM in reducing anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients with IBD.MethodsPatients with psychological distress identified by clinical impression and/or the results of the Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were referred to the CoCM program. Data from our 9-month CoCM pilot were collected to assess depression and anxiety response and remission rates. We obtained provider surveys to assess provider acceptability with delivering care in this model.ResultsThough the SARS-CoV2 COVID-19 pandemic interrupted screening, 39 patients enrolled and 19 active participants completed the program. Overall, 47.4% had either a response or remission in depression, while 36.8% had response or remission in anxiety. The gastroenterologists highly agreed that the program was a beneficial resource for their patients and felt comfortable implementing the recommendations.DiscussionCoCM is a potentially feasible and well accepted care delivery model for treatment of depression and anxiety in patients with IBD in a specialty gastroenterology clinic setting.
| S-EPMC9294946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 - 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions.
| S-EPMC10415735 | biostudies-literature