Capacity-building and training opportunities for implementation science in mental health

Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities

BACKGROUND

The field of implementation science has significantly expanded in size and scope over the past two decades, although work related to understanding implementation processes have of course long preceded the more systematic efforts to improve integration of evidence-based interventions into practice settings. While this growth has had significant benefits to research, practice, and policy, there are some clear challenges that this period of adolescence has uncovered.

MAIN BODY

This invited commentary reflects on the development of implementation science, its rapid growth, and milestones in its establishment as a viable component of the biomedical research enterprise. The authors reflect on progress in research and training, and then unpack some of the consequences of rapid growth, as the field has grappled with the competing challenges of legitimacy among the research community set against the necessary integration and engagement with practice and policy partners. The article then enumerates a set of principles for the field's next developmental stage and espouses the aspirational goal of a "big tent" to support the next generation of impactful science.

CONCLUSION

For implementation science to expand its relevance and impact to practice and policy, researchers must not lose sight of the original purpose of the field-to support improvements in health and health care at scale, the importance of building a community of research and practice among key partners, and the balance of rigor, relevance, and societal benefit.

"What Do I Say? How Do I Say it?" Twitter as a Knowledge Dissemination Tool for Mental Health Research

This study aims to generate evidence-based guidelines for researchers regarding how to effectively disseminate mental health research via Twitter. Three hundred mental health research Tweets posted from September 2018 to September 2019 were sampled from two large Australian organizations. Twenty-seven predictor variables were coded for each Tweet across five thematic categories: messaging; research area; mental health area; external networks; and media features. Regression analyses were conducted to determine associations with engagement outcomes of Favourites, Retweets, and Comments. Less than half (n = 10) of predictor variables passed validity tests. Notably, conclusions could not reliably be drawn on whether a Tweet featured evidence-based information. Tweets were significantly more likely to be Retweeted if they contained a hyperlink or multimedia. Tweets were significantly more likely to receive comments if they focused on a specific population group. These associations remain significant when controlling for organization. These findings indicate that researchers may be able to maximize engagement on Twitter by highlighting the population groups that the research applies to and enriching Tweets with multimedia content. In addition, care should be taken to ensure users can infer which messages are evidence-based. Guidelines and an accompanying resource are proposed.

Advancing healthcare equity through dissemination and implementation science

OBJECTIVE

To provide guiding principles and recommendations for how approaches from the field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science can advance healthcare equity.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This article, part of a special issue sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is based on an outline drafted to support proceedings of the 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit and further revised to reflect input from Summit attendees.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a narrative review of the current and potential applications of D&I approaches for understanding and advancing healthcare equity, followed by discussion and feedback with Summit attendees.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified major themes in narrative and systematic reviews related to D&I science, healthcare equity, and their intersections. Based on our expertise, and supported by synthesis of published studies, we propose recommendations for how D&I science is relevant for advancing healthcare equity. We used iterative discussions internally and at the Summit to refine preliminary findings and recommendations.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified four guiding principles and three D&I science domains with strong promise for accelerating progress toward healthcare equity. We present eight recommendations and more than 60 opportunities for action by practitioners, healthcare leaders, policy makers, and researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Promising areas for D&I science to impact healthcare equity include the following: attention to equity in the development and delivery of evidence-based interventions; the science of adaptation; de-implementation of low-value care; monitoring equity markers; organizational policies for healthcare equity; improving the economic evaluation of implementation; policy and dissemination research; and capacity building.

Evaluation of a brief virtual implementation science training program: the Penn Implementation Science Institute

BACKGROUND

To meet the growing demand for implementation science expertise, building capacity is a priority. Various training opportunities have emerged to meet this need. To ensure rigor and achievement of specific implementation science competencies, it is critical to systematically evaluate training programs.

METHODS

The Penn Implementation Science Institute (PennISI) offers 4 days (20 h) of virtual synchronous training on foundational and advanced topics in implementation science. Through a pre-post design, this study evaluated the sixth PennISI, delivered in 2022. Surveys measures included 43 implementation science training evaluation competencies grouped into four thematic domains (e.g., items related to implementation science study design grouped into the "design, background, and rationale" competency category), course-specific evaluation criteria, and open-ended questions to evaluate change in knowledge and suggestions for improving future institutes. Mean composite scores were created for each of the competency themes. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were completed.

RESULTS

One hundred four (95.41% response rate) and 55 (50.46% response rate) participants completed the pre-survey and post-survey, respectively. Participants included a diverse cohort of individuals primarily affiliated with US-based academic institutions and self-reported as having novice or beginner-level knowledge of implementation science at baseline (81.73%). In the pre-survey, all mean composite scores for implementation science competencies were below one (i.e., beginner-level). Participants reported high value from the PennISI across standard course evaluation criteria (e.g., mean score of 3.77/4.00 for overall quality of course). Scores for all competency domains increased to a score between beginner-level and intermediate-level following training. In both the pre-survey and post-survey, competencies related to "definition, background, and rationale" had the highest mean composite score, whereas competencies related to "design and analysis" received the lowest score. Qualitative themes offered impressions of the PennISI, didactic content, PennISI structure, and suggestions for improvement. Prior experience with or knowledge of implementation science influenced many themes.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation highlights the strengths of an established implementation science institute, which can serve as a model for brief, virtual training programs. Findings provide insight for improving future program efforts to meet the needs of the heterogenous implementation science community (e.g., different disciplines and levels of implementation science knowledge). This study contributes to ensuring rigorous implementation science capacity building through the evaluation of programs.

Prioritising and planning scale-up research projects targeting non-communicable diseases: a mixed-method study by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases upscaling working group

INTRODUCTION

Governments must scale-up evidence-based interventions to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Implementation research can help develop contextually appropriate strategies and optimise interventions for scale-up. We aimed to determine the priorities of the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) 2019 funding round for scale-up research targeting NCD interventions. The research questions were: (a) What was the purpose of the call and what were the specific issues considered by funders when supporting the selected projects? (b) How did the selected research projects align with the objectives of GACD scale-up call?

METHODS

We undertook a mixed-methods study to examine the projects funded by the GACD in 2019. We completed semistructured interviews with representatives from 5 out of 8 funding agencies and complemented this by reviewing project documents from 21 (78%) of the 27 funded studies. A literature review of scale-up frameworks informed the interview guide and data extraction template. The transcripts were open-coded using thematic analysis to identify critical issues for funders. Data were extracted to identify the common elements considered when planning, implementing and evaluating interventions for scale-up.

RESULTS

Interviews with the funders revealed three enabling themes related to scale-up: local research priorities (contextualisation through engagement), capacity building (developing knowledge base) and connections (networking opportunities). We further identified that timelines (more flexibility) and equity (funding low-income and middle-income researchers) could be considered for future funding investments. Multidisciplinary international research teams led the development of diverse studies to address funder's priorities. The detailed plans included a range of implementation frameworks to help develop contextual scale-up strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Fundamental to NCD scale-up research are (1) funding opportunities that reflect the complexity and time necessary to enable contextualisation; (2) investment in building multidisciplinary research capacity and leadership and (3) better networking to encourage cohesive action and align NCD-related scale-up research activities globally.

A Citation Review of 83 Dissemination and Implementation Theories, Models, or Frameworks Utilized in U.S.-Based Aging Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Dissemination-implementation.org outlines 110 theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs): we conducted a citation analysis on 83 TMFs, searching Web of Science and PubMed databases.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Search terms were broad and included "aging," "older," "elderly," and "geriatric." We extracted each TMF in identified articles from inception through January 28, 2022. Included articles must have used a TMF in research or quality improvement work directly linked to older adults within the United States.

RESULTS

We reviewed 2,681 articles of which 295 articles cited at least one of 56 TMFs. Five TMFs represented 50% of the citations: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance 1.0, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovation in Service Organizations, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, Community-Based Participatory Research, and Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services. TMF application varied and there was a steady increase in TMF citations over time, with a 2- to 3-fold increase in citations in 2020-2021. We identified that only 41% of TMF use was meaningful.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Our results suggest TMF utilization is increasing in aging research, but there is a need to more meaningful utilize TMFs. As the population of older adults continues to grow, there will be increasing demand for effective evidence-based practices and models of care to be quickly and effectively translated into routine care. Use of TMFs is critical to building such evidence and to identifying and evaluating methods to support this translation.

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of an Implementation Facilitation Training Program

Background: Implementation scientists are identifying evidence-based implementation strategies that support the uptake of evidence-based practices and other clinical innovations. However, there is limited information regarding the development of training methods to educate implementation practitioners on the use of implementation strategies and help them sustain these competencies. Methods: To address this need, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a training program for one strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), that was designed to maximize applicability in diverse clinical settings. Trainees included implementation practitioners, clinical managers, and researchers. From May 2017 to July 2019, we sent trainees an electronic survey via email and asked them to complete the survey at three-time points: approximately 2 weeks before and 2 weeks and 6 months after each training. Participants ranked their knowledge of and confidence in applying IF skills using a 4-point Likert scale. We compared scores at baseline to post-training and at 6 months, as well as post-training to 6 months post-training (nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests). Results: Of the 102 participants (76 in-person, 26 virtual), there was an increase in perceived knowledge and confidence in applying IF skills across all learning objectives from pre- to post-training (95% response rate) and pre- to 6-month (35% response rate) follow-up. There was no significant difference in results between virtual and in-person trainees. When comparing post-training to 6 months (30% response rate), perceptions of knowledge increase remained unchanged, although participants reported reduced perceived confidence in applying IF skills for half of the learning objectives at 6 months. Conclusions: Findings indicated that we have developed a promising IF training program. Lack of differences in results between virtual and in-person participants indicated the training can be provided to a remote site without loss of knowledge/skills transfer but ongoing support may be needed to help sustain perceived confidence in applying these skills.

Plain Language Summary

While implementation scientists are documenting an increasing number of implementation strategies that support the uptake of evidence-based practices and other clinical innovations, little is known about how to transfer this knowledge to those who conduct implementation efforts in the frontline clinical practice settings. We developed, implemented, and conducted a preliminary evaluation of a training program for one strategy, implementation facilitation (IF). The training program targets facilitation practitioners, clinical managers, and researchers. This paper describes the development of the training program, the program components, and the results from an evaluation of IF knowledge and skills reported by a subset of people who participated in the training. Findings from the evaluation indicate that this training program significantly increased trainees' perceived knowledge of and confidence in applying IF skills. Further research is needed to examine whether ongoing mentoring helps trainees retain confidence in applying some IF skills over the longer term.

Don't Get Lost in Translation: Integrating Developmental and Implementation Sciences to Accelerate Real-World Impact on Children's Development, Health, and Wellbeing

Translation of developmental science discoveries is impeded by numerous barriers at different stages of the research-to-practice pipeline. Actualization of the vast potential of the developmental sciences to improve children's health and development in the real world is imperative but has not yet been fully realized. In this commentary, we argue that an integrated developmental-implementation sciences framework will result in a translational mindset essential for accelerating real world impact. We delineate key principles and methods of implementation science of salience to the developmental science audience, lay out a potential synthesis between implementation and developmental sciences, provide an illustration of the Mental Health, Earlier Partnership (MHE-P), and set actionable steps for realization. Blending these approaches along with wide-spread adoption of the translational mindset has transformative potential for population-level impact of developmental science discovery.

Exploration of the utility of the Nursing Process and the Clinical Reasoning Cycle as a framework for forensic mental health nurses: A qualitative study

Forensic mental health nursing (FMHN) is a specialized field, designed to meet the needs of people who have a serious mental illness across the criminal justice system, inpatient services and community. Frameworks can assist assessment, planning, intervention, documentation and evaluation of nursing care. However, there is no prior research investigating frameworks in FMHN. This study aimed to explore the Nursing Process (NP) and the Clinical Reasoning Cycle (CRC), with nurses, to determine a suitable framework for use service-wide. A Nominal Group Technique was used to facilitate exploration of the two frameworks, where open-ended verbal and written responses collected from a Nominal Group were thematically analysed, and the participants voted on their preferred framework. Seventeen nurses from a state-wide forensic mental health (FMH) service participated. The four main themes were as follows: challenges to current practice, limitations of the NP, perceived benefits of the CRC and addressing implementation. Consensus was reached with the nurses selecting the CRC as the framework of choice. This is the first study to explore frameworks to guide practice in FMHN. Nurses in this study considered the CRC to be a suitable framework for novice through to expert, offering a contemporary framework to guide nursing care in complex FMH settings. Some adjustments to the existing cycle were suggested to emphasize recovery-oriented practice, and inclusion of family and carers. Any changes to the cycle warrant exploration with the interdisciplinary team and consumer carer workforce.

Elements in Mental Health Interventions Associated with Effects on Emotion Regulation in Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Adolescence is a sensitive period for developing mental health problems. Interventions targeting emotion regulation have shown promising transdiagnostic effects for this group, but optimization efforts are called for. In the current study, we used an element-based approach to identify potentially active ingredients in interventions measuring emotion regulation, to guide further optimization.

METHODS

We coded practice elements in 30 studies based on a systematic review of mental health interventions measuring emotion regulation in adolescents (N = 2,389 participants, mean age 13-17 years). Using a three-level modeling approach, we then investigated the difference in effect on emotion regulation between studies of interventions with and without these practice elements.

RESULTS

We identified 75 practice elements and 15 element categories used in the included interventions. Results showed significantly stronger effects on emotion regulation when interventions included the practice elements Setting goals for treatment (difference in d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.09, 0.70], p = .012) and Psychoeducation about acceptance (difference in d = 0.58, 95% CI [0.09, 1.07], p = .021). Furthermore, a total of 11 elements and four overall categories were identified as potentially active ingredients, based on an effect size difference of > 0.20 between interventions with and without the elements.

CONCLUSION

The results can direct experimental research into the selection of practices that are most likely key to mechanisms of change in interventions addressing emotion regulation for adolescents. The challenge of measuring emotion regulation is discussed.

AI Implementation Science for Social Issues: Pitfalls and Tips

The social implementation of knowledge and technologies that are effective in epidemiological and observational studies is essential for solving social issues. In particular, there have been few attempts to implement clinical practices and information communication technologies that utilize data in the field. We describe the four stages of social implementation: 1) redefining social issues as solvable problems, 2) finding technological solutions to solvable problems, 3) social implementation contributing to the solutions, and 4) horizontal deployment of effective methods for solving social issues. Introducing a use case of artificial intelligence (AI) social implementation in child-abuse response conducted by our team, we discuss pitfalls and tips as a frame of reference to demonstrate data utilization as social infrastructure for solving social issues and to consider practical solutions in a logical manner.

Building implementation capacity in health care and welfare through team training-study protocol of a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation of the building implementation capacity intervention

Background

To ensure the provision of high-quality safety and cost-effective health and welfare services, managers and professionals are required to introduce and ensure the routine use of clinical guidelines and other evidence-based interventions. Despite this, they often lack training and support in implementation. This project aims to investigate how a team training intervention, with the goal to build implementation capacity, influences participants’ implementation knowledge and skills, as well as how it influences implementation activities and implementation capacity within participating health and welfare organizations. Furthermore, the aim is to investigate how the organizations’ contexts influence the intervention outcomes.

Methods

The building implementation capacity (BIC) intervention builds on the behavior change wheel, which considers implementation as a matter of behavior change. The intervention will be provided to teams of managers and professionals working in health and welfare organizations and seeking support to implement a guideline- or evidence-based intervention. The intervention consists of a series of interactive workshops that provides the participating teams with the knowledge and skills to apply a systematic implementation model. A longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, including interviews, surveys, and document analysis, will be applied over 24 months. The normalization process theory measure will be used to assess how the intervention influences implementation activities in practice and implementation capacity in the teams and the wider organizations.

Discussion

This project has an ambition to add to the knowledge concerning how to promote the uptake of research findings into health care by building implementation capacity through team training in implementation. The project’s uniqueness is that it is designed to move beyond individual-level outcomes and evaluate implementation activities and implementation capacity in participating organizations. Further, the intervention will be evaluated over 24 months to investigate long-term outcomes of implementation training.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00233-7.

A mapping review of NIDA-funded implementation research studies on treatments for opioid and/or stimulant use disorders

BACKGROUND

The biomedical research enterprise invests greatly in discovery-oriented science, but significantly less in how to implement the most effective of these innovations. The return on investment in public health benefit is therefore low. In the context of substance-related overdose epidemics, presently with opioids and/or stimulants, the gap in proven treatments and routine access is amplified. Implementation research is designed to deepen understanding of how best to scale-up proven treatments. This study assessed how implementation research has been deployed in the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) efforts to address the opioid and stimulant epidemics.

METHODS

Adapting a procedure developed to categorize HIV-focused research, a four-stage systematic mapping review of NIDA-funded R01, R34, R61, and U studies pertaining to opioids and/or stimulants funded between 2015 and 2019 was performed. Abstracts were retrieved using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. Key study characteristics were abstracted and coded by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

An initial search across NIH institutes yielded 5963 relevant records. Of these, 666 (11.2 %) were NIDA funded. One-hundred-and-thirty-four (20.1 %) of the 666 studies were opioid and/or stimulant treatment related. Of these, 28 (4.2 %) were categorized as Implementation Preparation (IP), and 16 (2.4 %) were categorized as Implementation Research (IR). Over the five-year period, there was a gradual increase in both IP and IR studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation research is a small but slowly growing component of the federal portfolio to address substance-related public health issues. To more effectively respond to contemporary overdose epidemics, implementation research must take on an even more significant role.

The Refugee and Immigrant Core Stressors Toolkit (RICST): Understanding the Multifaceted Needs of Refugee and Immigrant Youth and Families Through a Four Core Stressors Framework

Research indicates that refugee and immigrant youth commonly face four core stressors during resettlement in a new country and culture: trauma, acculturative stress, resettlement stress, and isolation. This Four Core Stressors framework can be used to educate providers about these populations’ unique needs and support assessment of relevant socioecological factors influencing health. To facilitate education, training, and dissemination of this framework and complement existing provider resources, we developed the Refugee & Immigrant Core Stressors Toolkit (RICST), a free, web-based toolkit that provides an overview of the Four Core Stressors framework, assessment questions across the four domains, scaffolding to identify needs and points of triage, and recommended interventions. Public hosting of the RICST via REDCap began in March 2018. In addition to the toolkit, users are prompted to provide location of service delivery, intended purpose of use, and interface feedback. Between March 2018 and October 2020, the RICST was used over 2300 times across 6 continents. Most providers used the toolkit to learn more about the needs of refugee and immigrant youth in general, and several noted that it is a valuable educational tool for staff unfamiliar with these populations. Open-ended qualitative feedback indicated high usability. Amidst historically high levels of forced displacement, tools to support provider effectiveness in working with these populations are increasingly needed. The RICST shows promise as an educational, assessment, and treatment-planning tool for providers working with refugee and immigrant families globally. Future directions include location-specific resource mapping and culture-specific intervention strategies.

Value of peer mentoring for early career professional, research, and personal development: a case study of implementation scientists

Effective mentoring is a key mechanism propelling successful research and academic careers, particularly for early career scholars. Most mentoring programs focus on models pairing senior and early career researchers, with limited focus on peer mentoring. Peer mentoring may be especially advantageous within emerging areas such as implementation science (IS) where challenges to traditional mentoring may be more prevalent. This special communication highlights the value of peer mentoring by describing a case study of an early career IS peer mentoring group. We delineate our curriculum and structure; support and processes; and products and outcomes. We highlight important group member characteristics to consider during group formation and continuation. The group's long-term (6 years) success was attributed to the balance of similarities and differences among group members. Members were in a similar career phase and used similar methodologies but studied different health topics at different institutions. Group members gave and received instrumental and psychosocial support and shared resources and knowledge. Peer mentoring can serve an important function to provide emotional, logistical, and professional development support for early career scholars. Our case study highlights strategies to foster peer mentoring groups that provide a generalizable blueprint and opportunity for improved outcomes for early career professionals.

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives

BACKGROUND

The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown significantly over recent years. Alongside this, an increased demand for training in D&I from researchers and implementers has been seen. Research describing and evaluating D&I training opportunities, referred to here as 'capacity building initiatives' (CBIs), can help provide an understanding of different methods of training as well as training successes and challenges. However, to gain a more detailed understanding of the evidence-base and how D&I CBIs are being reported in publications, a field-wide examination of the academic literature is required.

METHODS

Systematic review to identify the type and range of D&I CBIs discussed and/or appraised in the academic literature. EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched between January 2006 and November 2019. Articles were included if they reported on a D&I CBI that was developed by the authors (of each of the included articles) or the author's host institution. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data using a standardised form.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles (from a total of 4181) were included. From these, 41 distinct D&I CBIs were identified which focussed on different contexts and professions, from 8 countries across the world. CBIs ranged from short courses to training institutes to being part of academic programmes. Nearly half were delivered face-face with the remainder delivered remotely or using a blended format. CBIs often stipulated specific eligibility criteria, strict application processes and/or were oversubscribed. Variabilities in the way in which the D&I CBIs were reported and/or evaluated were evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the number of training opportunities, as well as broadening their reach (to a wider range of learners), would help address the recognised deficit in D&I training. Standardisation in the reporting of D&I CBIs would enable the D&I community to better understand the findings across different contexts and scientific professions so that training gaps can be identified and overcome. More detailed examination of publications on D&I CBIs as well as the wider literature on capacity building would be of significant merit to the field.

Developing implementation research capacity: longitudinal evaluation of the King's College London Implementation Science Masterclass, 2014-2019

BACKGROUND

Despite an increasing number of training opportunities in implementation science becoming available, the demand for training amongst researchers and practitioners is unmet. To address this training shortfall, we developed the King's College London 'Implementation Science Masterclass' (ISM), an innovative 2-day programme (and currently the largest of its kind in Europe), developed and delivered by an international faculty of implementation experts.

METHODS

This paper describes the ISM and provides delegates' quantitative and qualitative evaluations (gathered through a survey at the end of the ISM) and faculty reflections over the period it has been running (2014-2019).

RESULTS

Across the 6-year evaluation, a total of 501 delegates have attended the ISM, with numbers increasing yearly from 40 (in 2014) to 147 (in 2019). Delegates represent a diversity of backgrounds and 29 countries from across the world. The overall response rate for the delegate survey was 64.5% (323/501). Annually, the ISM has been rated 'highly' in terms of delegates' overall impression (92%), clear and relevant learning objectives (90% and 94%, respectively), the course duration (85%), pace (86%) and academic level 87%), and the support provided on the day (92%). Seventy-one percent of delegates reported the ISM would have an impact on how they approached their future work. Qualitative feedback revealed key strengths include the opportunities to meet with an international and diverse pool of experts and individuals working in the field, the interactive nature of the workshops and training sessions, and the breadth of topics and contexts covered.

CONCLUSIONS

Yearly, the UK ISM has grown, both in size and in its international reach. Rated consistently favourably by delegates, the ISM helps to tackle current training demands from all those interested in learning and building their skills in implementation science. Evaluation of the ISM will continue to be an annual iterative process, reflective of changes in the evidence base and delegates changing needs as the field evolves.

Designs and methods for implementation research: Advancing the mission of the CTSA program

INTRODUCTION

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in response to the challenges of translating biomedical and behavioral interventions from discovery to real-world use. To address the challenge of translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice, the field of implementation science has emerged as a distinct discipline. With the distinction between EBI effectiveness research and implementation research comes differences in study design and methodology, shifting focus from clinical outcomes to the systems that support adoption and delivery of EBIs with fidelity.

METHODS

Implementation research designs share many of the foundational elements and assumptions of efficacy/effectiveness research. Designs and methods that are currently applied in implementation research include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, simulation modeling, and configurational comparative methods.

RESULTS

Examples of specific research designs and methods illustrate their use in implementation science. We propose that the CTSA program takes advantage of the momentum of the field's capacity building in three ways: 1) integrate state-of-the-science implementation methods and designs into its existing body of research; 2) position itself at the forefront of advancing the science of implementation science by collaborating with other NIH institutes that share the goal of advancing implementation science; and 3) provide adequate training in implementation science.

CONCLUSIONS

As implementation methodologies mature, both implementation science and the CTSA program would greatly benefit from cross-fertilizing expertise and shared infrastructures that aim to advance healthcare in the USA and around the world.

Commentary: Establishing Scientific Rigor and Excellence in Implementation Science Training to Improve the Deployment of Evidence-Based Mental Health Services

Real-world challenges continue to impede the dissemination, implementation and sustainment of high-quality, evidence-based practices, resulting in too many individuals not receiving the effective mental health care that they urgently need. The field of implementation science is poised to generate new solutions to address this important public health problem. Training a new generation of researchers in implementation science is one solution. The Implementation Research Institute (IRI) offers one approach to such training. The papers in this series, authored by some of the IRI graduates, illustrate the depth and breadth of the intellectual scope of IRI graduates' contributions to the implementation science field, chronicles important lessons learned, and underscores the IRI's training capacity. This commentary reflects upon the series in terms of a framework and themes that relate to core implementation science principles and to future research that corresponds to the National Institute of Mental Health research priorities and strategic plan.