Shawna N Smith1,2, Daniel Almirall2,3, Katherine Prenovost1, Celeste Liebrecht1,4, Julia Kyle1, Daniel Eisenberg5, Mark S Bauer6, Amy M Kilbourne1,4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School. 2. Institute for Social Research. 3. Department of Statistics, University of Michigan. 4. Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), US Department of Veterans Affairs. 5. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI. 6. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics. OBJECTIVES: To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support. RESEARCH DESIGN: Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF). MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18. RESULTS: Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59-13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, -0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.49) than REP+EF patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics. OBJECTIVES: To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support. RESEARCH DESIGN: Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF). MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18. RESULTS: Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59-13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, -0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.49) than REP+EF patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.
Authors: JoAnn Kirchner; Carrie N Edlund; Kathy Henderson; Lawrence Daily; Louise E Parker; John C Fortney Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.950
Authors: Mark S Bauer; Linda McBride; William O Williford; Henry Glick; Bruce Kinosian; Lori Altshuler; Thomas Beresford; Amy M Kilbourne; Martha Sajatovic Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Daniel Almirall; Scott N Compton; Meredith Gunlicks-Stoessel; Naihua Duan; Susan A Murphy Journal: Stat Med Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Margretta Bramlet; Michelle M Barbaresso; Kristina M Nord; David E Goodrich; Zongshan Lai; Edward P Post; Daniel Almirall; Lilia Verchinina; Sonia A Duffy; Mark S Bauer Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Enola K Proctor; John Landsverk; Gregory Aarons; David Chambers; Charles Glisson; Brian Mittman Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2008-12-23
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Daniel Almirall; Daniel Eisenberg; Jeanette Waxmonsky; David E Goodrich; John C Fortney; JoAnn E Kirchner; Leif I Solberg; Deborah Main; Mark S Bauer; Julia Kyle; Susan A Murphy; Kristina M Nord; Marshall R Thomas Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Shawna N Smith; Daniel Almirall; Seo Youn Choi; Elizabeth Koschmann; Amy Rusch; Emily Bilek; Annalise Lane; James L Abelson; Daniel Eisenberg; Joseph A Himle; Kate D Fitzgerald; Celeste Liebrecht; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 7.960
Authors: Jennifer L Sullivan; Bo Kim; Christopher J Miller; A Rani Elwy; Karen L Drummond; Samantha L Connolly; Rachel P Riendeau; Mark S Bauer Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2021-03-24
Authors: Kelly A Ryan; Shawna N Smith; Anastasia K Yocum; Isabel Carley; Celeste Liebrecht; Bethany Navis; Erica Vest; Holli Bertram; Melvin G McInnis; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2021-12-13
Authors: David J Kolko; Elizabeth A McGuier; Renee Turchi; Eileen Thompson; Satish Iyengar; Shawna N Smith; Kimberly Hoagwood; Celeste Liebrecht; Ian M Bennett; Byron J Powell; Kelly Kelleher; Maria Silva; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 7.960
Authors: James H Ford; Hannah Cheng; Michele Gassman; Harrison Fontaine; Hélène Chokron Garneau; Ryan Keith; Edward Michael; Mark P McGovern Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 7.960