No abstract

Background: The System Usability Scale (SUS) is used to measure usability of internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT). However, whether the SUS is a valid instrument to measure usability in this context is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the factor structure of the SUS, measuring usability of iCBT for depression in a sample of professionals. In addition, the psychometric properties (reliability, convergent validity) of the SUS were tested. Methods: A sample of 242 professionals using iCBT for depression from 6 European countries completed the SUS. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test whether a one-factor, two-factor, tone-model or bi-direct model would fit the data best. Reliability was assessed using complementary statistical indices (e.g. omega). To assess convergent validity, the SUS total score was correlated with an adapted Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-3). Results: CFA supported the one-factor, two-factor and tone-model, but the bi-factor model fitted the data best (Comparative Fit Index = 0.992, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.985, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.055, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.042 (respectively χ 2 diff (9) = 69.82, p < 0.001; χ 2 diff (8) = 33.04, p < 0.001). Reliability of the SUS was good (ω = 0.91). The total SUS score correlated moderately with the CSQ-3 (CSQ1 r s = .49, p < 0.001; CSQ2 r s = .46, p < 0.001; CSQ3 r s = .38, p < 0.001), indicating convergent validity. Conclusions: Although the SUS seems to have a multidimensional structure, the best model showed that the total sumscore of the SUS appears to be a valid and interpretable measure to assess the usability of internet-based interventions when used by professionals in mental healthcare.

This work demonstrates the capacity of budget impact analysis to enhance the implementation of complex interventions. Its integration in the context of the continuous improvement cycle is transferable to other contexts in which implementation depth and time are important.

Purpose To ensure that more people will benefit from integrated care initiatives, scaling-up of successful initiatives is the way forward. However, new challenges present themselves as knowledge on how to achieve successful large-scale implementation is scarce. The EU-funded project SCIROCCO uses a step-based scaling-up strategy to explore what to scale-up, and how to scale-up integrated care initiatives by matching the complementary strengths and weaknesses of five European regions involved in integrated care. The purpose of this paper is to describe a multi-method evaluation protocol designed to understand what factors influence the implementation of the SCIROCCO strategy to support the scaling-up of integrated care. Design/methodology/approach The first part of the protocol focuses on the assessment of the implementation fidelity of the SCIROCCO step-based strategy. The objective is to gain insight in whether the step-based strategy is implemented as it was designed to explore what works and does not work when implementing the scaling-up strategy. The second part concerns a realist evaluation to examine what it is about the SCIROCCO’s strategy that works for whom, why, how and in which circumstances when scaling-up integrated care. Findings The intended study will provide valuable information on the implementation of the scaling-up strategy which will help to explain for what specific reasons the implementation succeeds and will facilitate further improvement of project outcomes. Originality/value The expected insights could be useful to guide the development, implementation and evaluation of future scaling-up strategies to advance the change towards more sustainable health and care systems.

No abstract