Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study

Short‐ and long‐term strategies for navigating research‐ambivalent organizational cultures besetting embedded researchers

Many health systems may host embedded researchers (ERs) and provide fiscal resources to encourage health service research. However, ERs may remain challenged to initiate research in these settings. This discussion examines how health system culture may impede research initiation, thereby exposing a paradox for embedded researchers immersed in research-ambivalent health systems. The discussion ultimately describes potential short-term and long-term strategies embedded researchers may employ to initiate scholarly inquiry in research-ambivalent health systems.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

A Roadmap to Inform the Implementation of Evidence-Based Collaborative Care Interventions in Communities: Insights From the Michigan Mental Health Integration Partnership

Background: Despite increasing calls for further spread of evidence-based collaborative care interventions (EBIs) in community-based settings, practitioner-driven efforts are often stymied by a lack of experience in addressing barriers to community-based implementation, especially for those not familiar with implementation science. The Michigan Mental Health Integration Partnership (MIP) is a statewide initiative that funds projects that support implementation and uptake of EBIs in community-based settings. MIP also provides an in situ implementation laboratory for understanding barriers to the uptake of EBIs across a variety of settings. We report findings from a statewide qualitative study of practitioners involved in MIP projects to garner their perspectives of best practices in the implementation of EBIs.

Methods: Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews of practitioners and researchers from six MIP Projects were conducted with individuals implementing various MIP EBI projects across Michigan, including stakeholders from project teams, implementation sites, and the State of Michigan, to identify common barriers, challenges, and implementation strategies deployed by the project teams, with the purpose of informing a set of implementation steps and milestones.

Results: Stakeholders identified a number of barriers to and strategies for success, including the need for tailoring program deployment and implementation to specific site needs, development of web-based tools for facilitating program implementation, and the importance of upper-level administration buy-in. Findings informed our resultant community-based Implementation Roadmap, which identifies critical steps across three implementation phases—pre-implementation, implementation, and sustainability—for implementation practitioners to use in their EBI implementation efforts.

Conclusion: Implementation practitioners interested in community-based EBI implementation often lack access to operationalized implementation “steps” or “best practices” that can facilitate successful uptake and evaluation. Our community-informed MIP Implementation Roadmap, offering generalized steps for reaching successful implementation, uses experiences from a diverse set of MIP teams to guide practitioners through the practices necessary for scaling up EBIs in community-based settings over pre-implementation, implementation and sustainability phases.

Engaging Community Networks to Improve Depression Services: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Community Engagement and Planning Intervention

This paper explores the effects of a group-randomized controlled trial, Community Partners in Care (CPIC), on the development of interagency networks for collaborative depression care improvement between a community engagement and planning (CEP) intervention and a resources for services (RS) intervention that provided the same content solely via technical assistance to individual programs. Both interventions consisted of a diverse set of service agencies, including health, mental health, substance abuse treatment, social services, and community-trusted organizations such as churches and parks and recreation centers. Participants in the community councils for the CEP intervention reflected a range of agency leaders, staff, and other stakeholders. Network analysis of partnerships among agencies in the CEP versus RS condition, and qualitative analysis of perspectives on interagency network changes from multiple sources, suggested that agencies in the CEP intervention exhibited greater growth in partnership capacity among themselves than did RS agencies. CEP participants also viewed the coalition development intervention both as promoting collaboration in depression services and as a meaningful community capacity building activity. These descriptive results help to identify plausible mechanisms of action for the CPIC interventions and can be used to guide development of future community engagement interventions and evaluations in under-resourced communities.

A conversation with Thomas (Tom) R. Belin- 2020 HPSS long-term excellence award winner

At the 2020 International Conference on Health Policy Statistics held in San Diego, Thomas (Tom) R. Belin was awarded the Long-Term Excellence Award from the Health Policy Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association. Dr. Belin was exceptionally and uniquely qualified for this award. Highlights include his innovative statistical applications for health care research and his substantial contributions to the statistics and health policy communities through mentoring and service. In this interview, we asked Tom to share stories about his upbringing, schooling, and career phases to gain insights into his numerous achievements.

Outcomes of two quality improvement implementation interventions for depression services in adults with substance use problems

Background: Comorbid depression and substance use disorders (SUDs) are associated with poor health and social outcomes disproportionately affecting under-resourced communities.Objectives: To test the hypothesis that a coalition approach to collaborative care (CC) for depression would improve outcomes of hazardous drinking and behavioral health hospitalizations, relative to technical assistance, for individuals with comorbid substance use problems. Substance use problems were defined by meeting criteria for DSM-IV substance abuse or dependence, hazardous drinking by AUDIT-C, or treatment in a SUD program within the prior 6 months.Methods: Two depression CC implementation approaches were compared: Resources for Services (RS) provided expert technical support for CC toolkits to individual programs. Community engagement and planning (CEP) supported multi-sector coalitions in collaborating in planning, adapting, implementing and monitoring CC toolkits. One thousand eighteen individuals with depression (PHQ-8 ≥10) enrolled. Regression analyses estimated intervention effects in participants with comorbid substance use problems (n = 588, 281 females, 307 males). Substance use problems were defined by meeting criteria for DSM-IV substance abuse or dependence, hazardous drinking by AUDIT-C, or treatment in a SUD program within the prior 6 months.Results: There were no significant baseline differences by intervention status among participants with depression and substance use problems. Intervention effects on primary outcomes including depression were not significant at 6 months. Compared to RS, CEP significantly reduced alcohol consumption (CEP = 1.6, RS = 2.1, p = .038), probability of behavioral health hospitalizations (OR = 0.50, p = .036), and use of specialty mental health visits (IRR = 0.52, p = .027), while increasing use of faith-based depression services (IRR = 3.4, p = .001).Conclusions: Given feasibility and possible benefits, CEP should be considered a promising approach to implementing depression CC with potential benefits to adults with comorbid substance use problems.