In the past few years several major reports highlighted the gap between our knowledge of effective treatments and services currently being received by consumers. These reports agree that we know much about interventions that are effective but make little use of them to help achieve important behavioral health outcomes for children families and adults nationally. This theme is repeated in reports by the Surgeon General (United States Department of Health and Human Services 1999; 2001) the National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH] National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Intervention Development and Deployment (2001) Bernfeld Farrington & Leschied (2001) Institute of Medicine (2001) and the Presidents New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003). The authors call for applied research to better understand service delivery processes and contextual factors to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of program implementation at local state and national levels. Our understanding of how to develop and evaluate evidence-based intervention programs has been furthered by on-going efforts to research and refine programs and practices to define "evidence bases" and to designate and catalogue "evidence-based programs or practices". However the factors involved in successful implementation of these programs are not as well understood. Current views of implementation are based on the scholarly foundations prepared by Pressman & Wildavskys (1973) study of policy implementation Havelock & Havelocks (1973) classic curriculum for training change agents and Rogers (1983; 1995) series of analyses of factors influencing decisions to choose a given innovation. These foundations were tested and further informed by the experience base generated by pioneering attempts to implement Fairweather Lodges and National Follow-Through education models among others. Petersilia (1990) concluded that "The ideas embodied in innovative social programs are not self-executing." Instead what is needed is an "implementation perspective on innovation--an approach that views postadoption events as crucial and focuses on the actions of those who convert it into practice as the key to success or failure". (excerpt)

Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature.

Implementation science is a quickly growing discipline. Lessons learned from business and medical settings are being applied but it is unclear how well they translate to settings with different historical origins and customs (e.g., public mental health, social service, alcohol/drug sectors). The purpose of this paper is to propose a multi-level, four phase model of the implementation process (i.e., Exploration, Adoption/Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment), derived from extant literature, and apply it to public sector services. We highlight features of the model likely to be particularly important in each phase, while considering the outer and inner contexts (i.e., levels) of public sector service systems.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10488-010-0327-7.pdf

Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors.

One of the most critical issues in mental health services research is the gap between what is known about effective treatment and what is provided to consumers in routine care. Concerted efforts are required to advance implementation science and produce skilled implementation researchers. This paper seeks to advance implementation science in mental health services by over viewing the emergence of implementation as an issue for research, by addressing key issues of language and conceptualization, by presenting a heuristic skeleton model for the study of implementation processes, and by identifying the implications for research and training in this emerging field.

/pdf/implementation-research-in-mental-health-services-an-l0vne0s72v.pdf

Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: an Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges

The failure of better science to readily produce better services has led to increasing interest in the science and practice of implementation. The results of recent reviews of implementation literature and best practices are summarized in this article. Two frameworks related to implementation stages and core implementation components are described and presented as critical links in the science to service chain. It is posited that careful attention to these frameworks can more rapidly advance research and practice in this complex and fascinating area.

Core Implementation Components

This paper describes the application of mixed method designs in implementation research in 22 mental health services research studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the last 5 years. Our analyses revealed 7 different structural arrangements of qualitative and quantitative methods, 5 different functions of mixed methods, and 3 different ways of linking quantitative and qualitative data together. Complexity of design was associated with number of aims or objectives, study context, and phase of implementation examined. The findings provide suggestions for the use of mixed method designs in implementation research.

/pdf/mixed-method-designs-in-implementation-research-7pgcll46j5.pdf

Mixed Method Designs in Implementation Research

The upshot of these needs for change is both dismaying and exciting, both disturbing in the destruction of long-familiar patterns of dealing with human suffering, and paradoxically hopeful in raising the possibility that significant failures in our health care systems of the past — limited access to medical care and grossly inadequate public sector “non-systems”, for example — may now be addressed more successfully.

Roy W. Menninger

Papers

Administration and policy in mental health