If evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are not sustained, investments are wasted and public health impact is limited. Leadership has been suggested as a key determinant of implementation and sustainment; however, little empirical work has examined this factor. This mixed-methods study framed using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) conceptual framework examines leadership in both the outer service system context and inner organizational context in eleven system-wide implementations of the same EBI across two U.S. states and 87 counties. Quantitative data at the outer context (i.e., system) and inner context (i.e., team) levels demonstrated that leadership predicted future sustainment and differentiated between sites with full, partial, or no sustainment. In the outer context positive sustainment leadership was characterized as establishing a project’s mission and vision, early and continued planning for sustainment, realistic project plans, and having alternative strategies for project survival. Inner context frontline transformational leadership predicted sustainment while passive-avoidant leadership predicted non-sustainment. Qualitative results found that sustainment was associated with outer context leadership characterized by engagement in ongoing supportive EBI championing, marketing to stakeholders; persevering in these activities; taking action to institutionalize the EBI with funding, contracting, and system improvement plans; and fostering ongoing collaboration between stakeholders at state and county, and community stakeholder levels. For frontline leadership the most important activities included championing the EBI and providing practical support for service providers. There was both convergence and expansion that identified unique contributions of the quantitative and qualitative methods. Greater attention to leadership in both the outer system and inner organizational contexts is warranted to enhance EBI implementation and sustainment.

We assessed the role of promotoras—briefly trained community health workers—in depression care at community health centers. The intervention focused on four contextual sources of depression in underserved, low-income communities: underemployment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, and violence. A multi-method design included quantitative and ethnographic techniques to study predictors of depression and the intervention’s impact. After a structured training program, primary care practitioners (PCPs) and promotoras collaboratively followed a clinical algorithm in which PCPs prescribed medications and/or arranged consultations by mental health professionals and promotoras addressed the contextual sources of depression. Based on an intake interview with 464 randomly recruited patients, 120 patients with depression were randomized to enhanced care plus the promotora contextual intervention, or to enhanced care alone. All four contextual problems emerged as strong predictors of depression (chi square, p < .05); logistic regression revealed housing and food insecurity as the most important predictors (odds ratios both 2.40, p < .05). Unexpected challenges arose in the intervention’s implementation, involving infrastructure at the health centers, boundaries of the promotoras’ roles, and “turf” issues with medical assistants. In the quantitative assessment, the intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvements in depression (odds ratio 4.33, confidence interval overlapping 1). Ethnographic research demonstrated a predominantly positive response to the intervention among stakeholders, including patients, promotoras, PCPs, non-professional staff workers, administrators, and community advisory board members. Due to continuing unmet mental health needs, we favor further assessment of innovative roles for community health workers.

Objective Implementation and scale-up of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is often portrayed as involving multiple stakeholders collaborating harmoniously in the service of a shared vision. In practice, however, collaboration is a more complex process that may involve shared and competing interests and agendas, and negotiation. The present study examined the scale-up of an EBP across an entire service system using the Interagency Collaborative Team (ICT) approach. Methods Participants were key stakeholders in a large-scale county-wide implementation of an EBP to reduce child neglect, SafeCare®. Semi-structured interviews and/or focus groups were conducted with 54 individuals representing diverse constituents in the service system, followed by an iterative approach to coding and analysis of transcripts. The study was conceptualized using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Results Although community stakeholders eventually coalesced around implementation of SafeCare, several challenges affected the implementation process. These challenges included differing organizational cultures, strategies, and approaches to collaboration, competing priorities across levels of leadership, power struggles, and role ambiguity. Each of the factors identified influenced how stakeholders approached the EBP implementation process. Conclusions System wide scale-up of EBPs involves multiple stakeholders operating in a nexus of differing agendas, priorities, leadership styles, and negotiation strategies. The term collaboration may oversimplify the multifaceted nature of the scale-up process. Implementation efforts should openly acknowledge and consider this nexus when individual stakeholders and organizations enter into EBP implementation through collaborative processes.