Specifically, the agency learned about key factors to consider when assigning a person to a mental health caseload or stepping them down, such as mental health symptoms, stabilizing factors, and risk-related factors such as a person’s risk score and charge type. Participants also identified a set of factors that seemed to impact both implementation strategies used in the pilot project. Given the expectation that mental health officers in the pilot would share their supervision challenges with the case consultant to receive feedback and guidance, participants emphasized the roles of trust, confidentiality, and rapport building. The factors to consider when stepping a person down from a mental health caseload are largely the same; however, they should also consider the person’s compliance while on supervision. According to participants, not every person with mental illness on community supervision presents the same risk for recidivism or re-offense, and those who present higher risk levels should be prioritized on mental health caseloads. The final set of factors that participants identified as important considerations for mental health caseload assignment or step-down is risk-related factors.
- The authors may refer to the action plan released by WHO in October 2021 with indicative indicators for measuring the policy and implementation issues.
- Observed treatment effects are also smaller in real-world app studies without the follow-up and incentives common in highly controlled clinical trials (Arean et al. 2016; Roepke et al. 2015; Van Ameringen et al. 2017).
- These can include chronic underfunding, human resource shortages, fragmented delivery models, and limited implementation of ‘what works’ in mental health policy and practice.
- We depictthrough selected examples what this research looks like in practice, we highlight gapsin implementation research specific to children and adolescents living in lowresource-settings, and we make recommendations for future research.
Participants
Implementation success is assessed through a range of implementation outcomes, including acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26809/chapter/5 penetration and sustainability (Proctor et al., 2011). Finding an evidence-based practice or an intervention with good evidential rigor is essential; however, it is of limited practical consequence if that intervention has shown little efficacy in settings outside the one in which it was tested. Specifically, agencies should consider the context of the issue being addressed through intervention, including its etiology and even staff perception of the agency’s role and approach in addressing it.
METHODS
The results of this research illustrate a potentially useful method to assess the psychometrics of implementation measures in global mental health research. Building on our previous work developing mental health measures in LMIC and work being done in the United States to validate implementation measures, we incorporated key qualitative data to help ensure local relevance and ecologic validity. Strengths of the study include a robust sample size from multiple regions in Ukraine, qualitative methods to enhance adaptations, and use of a generalizable method and experimental vignette design to test implementation measures prior to use. While this approach may not be necessary in contexts where participants have familiarity with a range of services, use of vignettes was a practical tool to test the measures prior to their use among participants who lack familiarity with a variety of services and range in quality of implementation. In other words, the vignettes provided a way for people to provide their input on the implementation of mental health programs without ever having to have actually experienced these programs directly.
However, I also believe that research on implementation outcomes has made major progress over the last years, see e.g. 1–5. A very well-written paper with a concise overview of the background to the study, aims and methods used in this paper. This manuscript should be of relevance to readers with an interest in implementation science.
Taxonomy of Implementation Outcomes
He has expertise using administrative data from health and human services systems such as medical claims and child welfare records to examine issues related to implementation and outcomes of healthcare and other human services. Our services research translates evidence-based interventions into practice by improving access, affordability, organization and financing. Professor Patrick McGorry’s major interest is in youth mental health, particularly early psychosis, and in designing effective healthcare services for young people with emerging mental disorders.
This study analyses the implementation and sustainability of evidence-based community mental health services in the form of publicly financed Individual Placement and Support programs. Evidence-based approaches to expanding mental healthcare coverage often rely on primary care or community-based platforms for service delivery; recipients of mental health interventions may rarely have contact with secondary or tertiary mental health facilities 16, 17. Some studies indicated low prioritisation of mental health and stigma as barriers; others reported weak management and poor intersectoral collaboration, difficult political context and the complex nature of interventions as factors hindering policy implementation. This perspective uses specialized mental health community supervision to illustrate how implementation science methods can be used to adopt health interventions within criminal legal system settings. To highlight how implementation science methods can be used to adapt and implement health interventions within criminal legal system settings, this perspective uses the example of specialized mental health community supervision in the USA. Although MAISYs are just emerging in outlets such as conference proceedings (e.g., Connors et al., 2022b), a wide net of applied implementation research questions about which implementation strategies are most effective, when, for whom (based on student, school implementer, and/or school setting characteristics) can be pursued via application of these innovative SMART designs in school mental health.