12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementing Technologies to Enhance Coordinated Specialty Care Framework: Implementation Outcomes From a Development and Usability Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Coordinated specialty care (CSC) has demonstrated efficacy in improving outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis and individuals with first-episode psychosis. Given the limitations of scalability and staffing needs, the augmentation of services using digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) may be explored to help support CSC service delivery.

          Objective

          In this study, we aimed to understand the methods to implement and support technology in routine CSC and offered insights from a quality improvement study assessing the implementation outcomes of DMHIs in CSC.

          Methods

          Patients and clinicians including psychiatrists, therapists, and supported education and employment specialists from a clinical-high-risk-for-psychosis clinic (Center for Early Detection Assessment and Response to Risk [CEDAR]) and a first-episode–psychosis clinic (Advancing Services for Psychosis Integration and Recovery [ASPIRE]) participated in a quality improvement project exploring the feasibility of DMHIs following the Access, Alignment, Connection, Care, and Scalability framework to implement mindLAMP, a flexible and evidenced-based DMHI. Digital navigators were used at each site to assist clinicians and patients in implementing mindLAMP. To explore the differences in implementation outcomes associated with the app format, a menu-style format was delivered at CEDAR, and a modular approach was used at ASPIRE. Qualitative baseline and follow-up data were collected to assess the specific implementation outcomes.

          Results

          In total, 5 patients (ASPIRE: n=3, 60%; CEDAR: n=2, 40%) were included: 3 (60%) White individuals, 2 (40%) male and 2 (40%) female patients, and 1 (20%) transgender man, with a mean age of 19.6 (SD 2.05) years. Implementation outcome data revealed that patients and clinicians demonstrated high accessibility, acceptability, interest, and belief in the sustainability of DMHIs. Clinicians and patients presented a wide range of interest in unique use cases of DMHI in CSC and expressed variable feasibility and appropriateness associated with nuanced barriers and needs. In addition, the results suggest that adoption, penetration, feasibility, and appropriateness outcomes were moderate and might continue to be explored and targeted.

          Conclusions

          Implementation outcomes from this project suggest the need for a patient- and clinician-centered approach that is guided by digital navigators and provides versatility, autonomy, and structure. Leveraging these insights has the potential to build on growing research regarding the need for versatility, autonomy, digital navigator support, and structured applications. We anticipate that by continuing to research and improve implementation barriers impeding the adoption and penetration of DMHIs in CSC, accessibility and uptake of DMHIs will improve, therefore connecting patients to the demonstrated benefits of technology-augmented care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

          An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS).

            Mental health provider attitudes toward organizational change have not been well studied. Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) into real-world settings represent organizational change that may be limited or facilitated by provider attitudes toward adoption of new treatments, interventions, and practices. A brief measure of mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of EBPs was developed and attitudes were examined in relation to a set of provider individual difference and organizational characteristics. Participants were 322 public sector clinical service workers from 51 programs providing mental health services to children and adolescents and their families. Four dimensions of attitudes toward adoption of EBPs were identified: (1) intuitive Appeal of EBP, (2) likelihood of adopting EBP given Requirements to do so, (3) Openness to new practices, and (4) perceived Divergence of usual practice with research-based/academically developed interventions. Provider attitudes varied by education level, level of experience, and organizational context. Attitudes toward adoption of EBPs can be reliably measured and vary in relation to individual differences and service context. EBP implementation plans should include consideration of mental health service provider attitudes as a potential aid to improve the process and effectiveness of dissemination efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Implementation science: What is it and why should i care?

              Centuries of experience make it clear that establishing the effectiveness of a clinical innovation is not sufficient to guarantee its uptake into routine use. The relatively new field of implementation science has developed to enhance the uptake of evidence-based practices and thereby increase their public health impact. Implementation science shares many characteristics, and the rigorous approach, of clinical research. However, it is distinct in that it attends to factors in addition to the effectiveness of the clinical innovation itself, to include identifying and addressing barriers and facilitators to the uptake of evidence-based clinical innovations. This article reviews the definition, history, and scope of implementation science, and places the field within the broader enterprise of biomedical research. It also provides an overview of this Special Issue of Psychiatry Research, which introduces the principles and methods of implementation science to mental health researchers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Form Res
                JMIR Form Res
                JFR
                JMIR Formative Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2561-326X
                2023
                3 October 2023
                : 7
                : e46491
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA United States
                [2 ] Brookline Center for Community Mental Health Brookline, MA United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: James B Green jgreen8@ 123456bidmc.harvard.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8671-3631
                https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8643-5511
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5945-888X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7128-6697
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5362-7937
                Article
                v7i1e46491
                10.2196/46491
                10582803
                37788066
                10130009-e9b1-482f-855a-d68e083cdfbf
                ©James B Green, Joey Rodriguez, Matcheri Keshavan, Paulo Lizano, John Torous. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 03.10.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 13 February 2023
                : 31 July 2023
                : 8 August 2023
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                psychosis,digital health,digital mental health,coordinated specialty care,digital navigator,clinical high risk,schizophrenia,implementation science,technology,mobile phone

                Comments

                Comment on this article