Background Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations. Methods A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants’ experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations. Results Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research. Conclusions Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another’s work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another’s disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.
In recent years, the prevalence rates of children’s mental health disorders have increased with current estimates identifying that as many as 15–20% of children meet criteria for a mental health disorder. Unfortunately, the same robust parenting interventions which have long targeted some of the most common and the most treatable child concerns (e.g., externalizing, disruptive behavior, and aggression) have also shown consistently low rates of father engagement. This persistent issue of engagement comes in the wake of an increasingly large body of literature which highlights the unique positive contributions fathers make to children and families when they are engaged in parenting interventions. As the role fathers play in families shifts to become more inclusive of childcare responsibilities and less narrowly defined by financial contributions, it becomes increasingly important to understand how best to engage fathers in interventions that aim to enhance parenting efficacy and family outcomes such as coparenting. The current review examined intervention (e.g., format and setting) and implementation characteristics (e.g., training and agency-level changes) associated with father engagement. Particular attention is paid to studies which described father-specific engagement strategies (e.g., inviting fathers directly, father-only groups, and adapting intervention to incorporate father preferences). A total of 26 articles met inclusion criteria after screening and full-text review. Results indicate that father engagement (i.e., initiating treatment) remains low with 58% of studies either not reporting father engagement or having engagement rates below 50%. More than two-thirds of studies did not include specific father engagement strategies. Those that did focused on changes to treatment format (e.g., including recreational activities), physical treatment setting (e.g., in-home and school), and reducing the number of sessions required for father participation as the most common father-specific engagement strategies. Some studies reported efforts to target racially and ethnically diverse fathers, but review results indicated most participants identified as Non-Hispanic White. Interventions were largely standard behavioral parent training programs (e.g., PCIT and PMT) with few exceptions (e.g., COACHES and cultural adaptations), and very few agencies or programs are systematically making adjustments (e.g., extended clinic hours and changes to treatment format) to engage fathers. Recommendations for future directions of research are discussed including the impact of differential motivation on initial father engagement in treatment, the importance of continuing to support diverse groups of fathers, and the potential for telehealth to address barriers to father engagement.
This paper posits that a clinician's own anxious reaction to delivering specific evidence-based interventions (EBIs) should be better accounted for within implementation science frameworks. A key next step for implementation science is to delineate the causal processes most likely to influence successful implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs). This is critical for being able to develop tailored implementation strategies that specifically target mechanisms by which implementation succeeds or fails. First, we review the literature on specific EBIs that may act as negatively valenced stimuli for clinicians, leading to a process of clinician maladaptive anxious avoidance that can negatively impact EBI delivery. In the following sections, we argue that there are certain EBIs that can cause emotional distress or discomfort in a clinician, related to either: (1) a clinicians' fear of the real or predicted short-term distress the EBI can cause patients, or (2) fears that the clinician will inadvertently cause the patient harm and/or face liability. This distress experienced by the clinician can perpetuate a cycle of maladaptive anxious avoidance by the clinician, contributing to lack of or suboptimal EBI implementation. We illustrate how this cycle of maladaptive anxious avoidance can influence implementation by providing several examples from leading EBIs in the psychosocial literature. To conclude, we discuss how leveraging decades of treatment literature aimed at mitigating maladaptive anxious avoidance can inform the design of more tailored and effective implementation strategies for EBIs that are negatively valenced.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.