A virtual learning collaborative to implement health promotion in routine mental health settings: Protocol for a cluster randomized trial

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

ESSENCE: An Implementation Research Program to Scale Up Depression Care in Rural Communities

BACKGROUND

Task sharing may involve training nonspecialist health workers (NSHWs) to deliver brief mental health interventions. This approach is promising for reducing the global mental health treatment gap. However, capacity is limited for training large cadres of frontline workers in low- and middle-income countries, hindering uptake of these interventions at scale.

METHODS

The ESSENCE (enabling translation of science to service to enhance depression care) project in Madhya Pradesh, India, aims to address these challenges through two sequential randomized controlled trials. First, a training trial will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital training, compared with conventional face-to-face training, in achieving clinical competency of NSHWs in delivering an intervention for depression. This initial trial will be followed by an implementation trial aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a remote enhanced implementation support, compared with routine implementation support, in addressing barriers to delivery of depression care in primary care facilities.

RESULTS

This project involved developing and pilot testing a scalable smartphone-based program for training NSHWs to deliver a brief psychological intervention for depression screening. This initial research guided a randomized trial of a digital training approach with NSHWs to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach. This trial will be followed by a cluster-randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of remote implementation support in ensuring efficient delivery of depression care in primary care facilities.

NEXT STEPS

Findings from these trials may inform sustainable training and implementation support models to integrate depression care into primary care for scale-up in resource-constrained settings.

Sustaining HIV Research in Resource-Limited Settings Using PLAN (People, Learning, Adapting, Nurturing): Evidence from the 4 Youth by Youth Project in Nigeria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sustaining evidence-based interventions in resource-limited settings is a perennial challenge. Despite growing research on the significance of sustainability, few frameworks describe why and how to plan for sustainability in settings limited with resources. Drawing on a synthesis of the literature on sustainability, including the Dynamic Sustainability Framework, we review lessons learned from research to date, to point out a path forward for sustaining evidence-based interventions in resource-limited settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

We describe PLAN or why people learning, adapting, and nurturing the core values of an intervention can enhance its sustainability over time. PLAN is a dynamic framework that simplifies the process of planning for sustainability of evidence-based interventions throughout the lifecyle of an intervention, taking into consideration the people that matter as well as the learning, adaptation, and nurturing involved with understanding and studying the interactions between interventions/innovations, practice settings, intervention fit, and the broader ecological contexts in which implementation occurs. We use case-study data from our ongoing pragmatic HIV implementation trial, the 4 Youth by Youth project, to detail the value and implications of why people learning, adapting, and nurturing HIV interventions implemented in resource-limited settings matter. PLAN is designed to further the dialogue on ways research and practice teams can critically work to ensure the sustainability of their evidence-based interventions from the onset, particularly in settings and with populations limited with resources. It also illustrates how attention to sustainability from the beginning may foster actions necessary for sustained program → sustained benefits → sustained capacity → sustained value, but in the absence of early and active planning, none of this will occur. Ultimately, we hope to accelerate the sustainability of evidence-based HIV interventions, and making a PLAN at the bare minimum may ensure that the goals of continuing and maintaining desirable features of any evidence-based interventions can be realized.

Learning Collaboratives: a Strategy for Quality Improvement and Implementation in Behavioral Health

Learning collaboratives are increasingly used in behavioral health. They generally involve bringing together teams from different organizations and using experts to educate and coach the teams in quality improvement, implementing evidence-based practices, and measuring the effects. Although learning collaboratives have demonstrated some effectiveness in general health care, the evidence is less clear in behavioral health and more rigorous studies are needed. Learning collaboratives may contain a range of elements, and which elements are included in any one learning collaborative varies widely; the unique contribution of each element has not been established. This commentary seeks to clarify the concept of a learning collaborative, highlight its common elements, review evidence of its effectiveness, identify its application in behavioral health, and highlight recommendations to guide technical assistance purveyors and behavioral health providers as they employ learning collaboratives to improve behavioral health access and quality.

Virtual Learning Collaborative Compared to Technical Assistance as a Strategy for Implementing Health Promotion in Routine Mental Health Settings: A Hybrid Type 3 Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use of learning collaboratives, few randomized trials have evaluated their effectiveness as a strategy for implementing evidence based practices. This randomized trial evaluated the effectiveness of a virtual learning collaborative (VLC) in the implementation of a health promotion program for persons with serious mental illness (SMI) aimed at reducing cardiovascular risk reduction in routine mental health settings, compared to routine technical assistance (TA).

METHODS

Fifty-five mental health provider organizations were recruited to participate in a Hybrid Type 3 cluster randomized implementation-effectiveness trial of the InSHAPE health promotion program for persons with SMI. Sites were stratified by size and randomized prior to implementation to an 18-month group-based VLC with monthly learning sessions or individual site TA with four scheduled conference calls over 18 months. Primary implementation and service outcomes were InSHAPE program fidelity, participation, and reach. Primary clinical outcomes were weight loss, cardiorespiratory fitness, and cardiovascular risk reduction (≥ 5% weight loss or > 50 m increase on the 6-Minute Walk Test). Program fidelity was assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months; program participation and participant-level outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

RESULTS

VLC (N = 27) and TA (N = 28) sites were similar in organizational characteristics (all p > 0.05). At 12-month follow-up mean program fidelity score was higher in VLC compared to TA (90.5 vs. 79.1; p = 0.002), with over double the proportion with good fidelity (VLC = 73.9% vs. TA = 34.8%; p = 0.009). Over half of individuals in both VLC and TA achieved cardiovascular risk-reduction at 6-month follow-up (VLC: 51.0%; TA: 53.5%; p = 0.517) and at 12-month follow-up (62% VLC and TA; p = 0.912). At 12-month follow-up VLC compared to TA was associated with greater participation (VLC 69.5% vs. TA 56.4% attending at least 50% of sessions, p = 0.002); larger caseloads (VLC = 16 vs. TA = 11; p = 0.024); greater reach consisting of 45% greater number of participants receiving InSHAPE (VLC = 368 vs. TA = 253), and 58% greater number of participants achieving cardiovascular risk reduction (VLC = 150 vs. TA = 95).

CONCLUSION

Virtual learning collaboratives compared to routine technical assistance as an implementation strategy for evidence-based health promotion promote greater intervention fidelity, greater levels of intervention participation, greater reach, and a greater number of participants achieving clinically significant risk reduction outcomes, while achieving similarly high levels of intervention effectiveness for participants who completed at least 6 months of the program.

Applying an Equity Lens to Characterizing the Process and Reasons for an Adaptation to an Evidenced-based Practice

Background

Adaptations to evidence-based practices (EBPs) are common but can impact implementation and patient outcomes. In our prior research, providers in routine care made a fidelity-inconsistent adaptation to an EBP that improved health outcomes in people with serious mental illness (SMI). The purpose of this study was to characterize the process and reasons for the adaptation using a framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to EBPs, with a focus on equity.

Methods

This study used qualitative data collected during a national implementation of the InSHAPE EBP addressing obesity in persons with SMI. We reviewed transcripts from five behavioral health organizations that made a successful fidelity-inconsistent adaptation to a core component of InSHAPE that was associated with cardiovascular risk reduction. We coded the data using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) with an emphasis on exploring whether the adaptation addressed inequities in using the EBP related to social determinants of health.

Results

Across the five agencies, the fidelity-inconsistent adaptation was characterized as unplanned and reactive in response to challenges InSHAPE teams experienced delivering the intervention in community fitness facilities as intended. In all cases, the goal of the adaptation was to improve intervention access, feasibility and fit. Social and economic disadvantage were noted obstacles to accessing fitness facilities or gyms among participants with SMI, which led agencies to adapt the program by offering sessions at the mental health center.

Conclusions

Findings from this study show the advantages of applying a health equity lens to evaluate how obstacles such as poverty and discrimination influence EBP adaptations. Recommendations can also assist researchers and community partners in making proactive decisions about allowable adaptations to EBPs.

Renewed call for lifestyle interventions to address obesity among individuals with serious mental illness in the COVID-19 era and beyond

Behavioral health has the opportunity to lead the way in using lifestyle interventions to address obesity and health disparities in people with serious mental illness (SMI) in the COVID-19 era. Evidence-based interventions for weight loss in individuals with SMI exist, and the field has developed strategies for implementing these interventions in real-world mental health care settings. In addition to promoting weight loss, lifestyle interventions have the potential to address social isolation and loneliness and other patient-centered outcomes among individuals with SMI, which will be especially valuable for mitigating the growing concerns about loneliness attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on in-person encounters. In this commentary, we discuss practice, policy, and research implications related to using evidence-based lifestyle interventions for individuals with SMI during the COVID-19 pandemic and sustaining these programs in the long-term.

Implementation of peer recovery coach services for opioid overdose patients in emergency departments in Indiana: findings from an informal learning collaborative of stakeholders

The Recovery Coach and Peer Support Initiative (RCPSI) in Indiana focused on implementing peer recovery coaches (PRCs) to engage opioid overdose patients in emergency department (ED) settings and promote entry into recovery services. State workers and researchers organized an informal learning collaborative primarily through teleconference meetings with representatives of 11 health service vendors to support implementation. This study presents qualitative analysis of the teleconference meeting discussions that guided RCPSI implementation to display how the informal learning collaborative functioned to support implementation. This informal learning collaborative model can be applied in similar situations where there is limited guidance available for a practice being implemented by multidisciplinary teams. Authors conducted a thematic analysis of data from 32 stakeholder teleconference meetings held between February 2018 and April 2020. The analysis explored the function of these collaborative teleconferences for stakeholders. Major themes representing functions of the meetings for stakeholders include: social networking; executing the implementation plan; identifying and addressing barriers and facilitators; educating on peer recovery services and target population; and working through data collection. During the last 2 months of meetings, stakeholders discussed how the COVID-19 pandemic created multiple barriers but increased use of telehealth for recovery services. Teleconference meetings served as the main component of an informal learning collaborative for the RCPSI through which the vendor representatives could speak with each other and with organizers as they implemented the use of PRCs in EDs.

A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Virtual Learning Collaborative and Technical Assistance strategies to implement an early palliative care program for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Virtual Learning Collaboratives (VLC), learning communities focused on a common purpose, are used frequently in healthcare settings to implement best practices. Yet, there is limited research testing the effectiveness of this approach compared to other implementation strategies. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a VLC compared to Technical Assistance (TA) among community oncology practices implementing ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends), an evidence-based, early palliative care telehealth, psycho-educational intervention for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer and their caregivers.

METHODS

Using Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) and Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Frameworks, this two-arm hybrid type-III cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) will compare two implementation strategies, VLC versus TA, among the 48 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice clusters that have not historically provided palliative care to all patients with advanced cancer. Three cohorts of practice clusters will be randomized to the study arms. Each practice cluster will recruit 15-27 patients and a family caregiver to participate in ENABLE. The primary study outcome is ENABLE uptake (patient level), i.e., the proportion of eligible patients who complete the ENABLE program (receive a palliative care assessment and complete the six ENABLE sessions over 12 weeks). The secondary outcome is overall program implementation (practice cluster level), as measured by the General Organizational Index at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Exploratory aims assess patient and caregiver mood and quality of life outcomes at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks. Practice cluster randomization will seek to keep the proportion of rural practices, practice sizes, and minority patients seen within each practice balanced across the two study arms.

DISCUSSION

This study will advance the field of implementation science by evaluating VLC effectiveness, a commonly used but understudied, implementation strategy. The study will advance the field of palliative care by building the capacity and infrastructure to implement an early palliative care program in community oncology practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov . NCT04062552; Pre-results. Registered: August 20, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04062552?term=NCT04062552&draw=2&rank=1.