Collaborative care for depression management in primary care: A randomized roll-out trial using a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design

Core Components and Implementation Determinants of Multilevel Service Delivery Frameworks Across Child Mental Health Service Settings

Multilevel service delivery frameworks are approaches to structuring and organizing a spectrum of evidence-based services and supports, focused on assessment, prevention, and intervention designed for the local context. Exemplar frameworks in child mental health include positive behavioral interventions and supports in education, collaborative care in primary care, and systems of care in community mental health settings. Yet, their high-quality implementation has lagged. This work proposes a conceptual foundation for multilevel service delivery frameworks spanning diverse mental health service settings that can inform development of strategic implementation supports. We draw upon the existing literature for three exemplar multilevel service delivery frameworks in different child mental health service settings to (1) identify core components common to each framework, and (2) to highlight prominent implementation determinants that interface with each core component. Six interrelated components of multilevel service delivery frameworks were identified, including, (1) a systems-level approach, (2) data-driven problem solving and decision-making, (3) multiple levels of service intensity using evidence-based practices, (4) cross-linking service sectors, (5) multiple providers working together, including in teams, and (6) built-in implementation strategies that facilitate delivery of the overall model. Implementation determinants that interface with core components were identified at each contextual level. The conceptual foundation provided in this paper has the potential to facilitate cross-sector knowledge sharing, promote generalization across service settings, and provide direction for researchers, system leaders, and implementation intermediaries/practitioners working to strategically support the high-quality implementation of these frameworks.

A Positive Distress Screen…Now What? An Updated Call for Integrated Psychosocial Care

How can we move collaborative care from evidence-based practice to everyday practice for those living with cancer and distress?

Implementation Barriers and Experiences of Eligible Patients Who Failed to Enroll in Collaborative Care for Depression and Anxiety

BACKGROUND

Effective and efficient implementation of the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for depression and anxiety is imperative for program success. Studies examining barriers to implementation often omit patient perspectives.

OBJECTIVES

To explore experiences and attitudes of eligible patients referred to CoCM who declined participation or were unable to be reached, and identify implementation barriers to inform strategies.

DESIGN

Convergent mixed-methods study with a survey and interview.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care patients at an academic medical center who were referred to a CoCM program for anxiety and depression by their primary care clinician (PCC) but declined participation or were unable to be reached by the behavioral health care manager to initiate care (n = 80). Interviews were conducted with 45 survey respondents.

MAIN MEASURES

Survey of patients' referral experiences and behavioral health preferences as they related to failing to enroll in the program. Interview questions were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research version 2.0 (CFIR 2.0) to identify implementation barriers to enrollment.

KEY RESULTS

Survey results found that patients were uncertain about insurance coverage, did not understand the program, and felt services were not necessary. Referred patients who declined participation were concerned about how their mental health information would be used and preferred treatment without medication. Men agreed more that they did not need services. Qualitative results exhibited a variety of implementation determinants (n = 23) across the five CFIR 2.0 domains. Barriers included mental health stigma, perceiving behavioral health as outside of primary care practice guidelines, short or infrequent primary care appointments, prioritizing physical health over mental health, receiving inaccurate program information, low motivation to engage, and a less established relationship with their PCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple barriers to enrollment led to failing to link patients to care, which can inform implementation strategies to address the patient-reported experiences and concerns.

Protocol for a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study expanding, implementing and evaluating electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom monitoring in a multisite cancer centre

INTRODUCTION

Cancer symptom monitoring and management interventions can address concerns that may otherwise go undertreated. However, such programmes and their evaluations remain largely limited to trials versus healthcare systemwide applications. We previously developed and piloted an electronic patient-reported symptom and need assessment ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes) within the electronic health record (EHR). This study will expand cPRO implementation to medical oncology clinics across a large healthcare system. We will conduct a formal evaluation via a stepped wedge trial with a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Aim 1 comprises a mixed method evaluation of cPRO implementation. Adult outpatients will complete cPRO assessments (pain, fatigue, physical function, depression, anxiety and supportive care needs) before medical oncology visits. Results are available in the EHR; severe symptoms and endorsed needs trigger clinician notifications. We will track implementation strategies using the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System. Aim 2 will evaluate cPRO's impact on patient and system outcomes over 12 months via (a) a quality improvement study (n=4000 cases) and (b) a human subjects substudy (n=1000 patients). Aim 2a will evaluate EHR-documented healthcare usage and patient satisfaction. In aim 2b, participating patients will complete patient-reported healthcare utilisation and quality, symptoms and health-related quality of life measures at baseline, 6 and 12 months. We will analyse data using generalised linear mixed models and estimate individual trajectories of patient-reported symptom scores at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Using growth mixture modelling, we will characterise the overall trajectories of each symptom. Aim 3 will identify cPRO implementation facilitators and barriers via mixed methods research gathering feedback from stakeholders. Patients (n=50) will participate in focus groups or interviews. Clinicians and administrators (n=40) will complete surveys to evaluate implementation. We will graphically depict longitudinal implementation survey results and code qualitative data using directed content analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (STU00207807). Findings will be disseminated via local and conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04014751; ClinicalTrials.gov.