No abstract

No abstract

We surveyed pediatric primary care clinicians working in Federally Qualified Health Centers about their perceptions of children’s social-emotional wellbeing. We identified clinician’s current methods for assessing social-emotional wellbeing in practices, perceived implementation barriers to providing behavioral health care, and interest in adopting a validated, low-burden developmentally sensitive parent-report instrument for screening for social-emotional wellbeing in young children. We surveyed 72 PCCs working in FQHCs from 9 US states. Analyses included examining central tendencies, correlations, analysis of variance, and group differences via t-tests. Average PCC perceptions of social-emotional wellbeing importance for overall health were statistically significantly higher than their confidence in providing care for common social-emotional wellbeing concerns (mean difference = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.13–1.49). PCCs expressed low satisfaction with currently available screening measures for identifying concerns in social-emotional wellbeing. Fewer than half of clinicians reported using any standardized parent-reported measure for identifying concerns in social-emotional wellbeing. Assessment methods and decision tools that improve clinician confidence concerning risk indications are needed, particularly at the critical early childhood period. Policymakers and payers ought to facilitate funding mechanisms that support pediatric PCCs in identifying early concerns in social-emotional wellbeing and providing referral guidance to evidence-based interventions to support parents and caregivers.

Background : As the most common setting where youth access behavioral healthcare, the education sector frequently employs training and follow-up consultation as cornerstone implementation strategies to promote the implementation of evidencebased practices (EBPs). However, these strategies alone are not sufficient to promote desirable implementation (e.g., intervention fidelity) and youth behavioral outcomes (e.g., mitigated externalizing behaviors). Theory-informed pragmatic preimplementation enhancement strategies (PIES) are needed to prevent the lackluster outcomes of training and consultation. Specifically, social-cognitive theory explicates principles that inform the design of PIES content and specify mechanisms of behavior change (e.g., " intentions to implement "; ITI) to target increasing providers' responsiveness to training and consultation. Methods: This triple-blind parallel randomized controlled trial preliminarily examined the efficacy of a pragmatic PIES based on social-cognitive theories (SC-PIES) to improve implementation and youth behavioral outcomes from universal preventive EBPs in the education sector. Teachers from a diverse urban district were recruited and randomly assigned to the treatment (SC-PIES; n treatment = 22) or active control condition (administrative meeting; n control = 21). Based on the condition assigned, teachers received the SC-PIES or met with administrators before their EBP training. We assessed teachers' ITI, intervention fidelity, and youth behavioral outcome (academic engagement as an incompatible Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems CorporationNote. This paper has been accepted by Prevention Science behavior to externalizing disorders) at baseline, immediately after training, and six weeks afterward. Results : A series of ANCOVAs detected sizeable effects of SC-PIES, where teachers who received SC-PIES demonstrated significantly larger improvement in their ITI, intervention fidelity, and youth behaviors as compared to the control. Conditional analyses indicated that teachers' ITI partially mediated the effect of SC-PIES on intervention fidelity, which in turn led to improved youth behaviors. Conclusions : Findings suggest that theory-informed pragmatic PIES targeting providers' ITI can boost their responsiveness to implementation strategies, as reflected in improved implementation behaviors and youth behavioral outcomes. The results have implications for targeting motivational mechanisms of behavior change and situating preventive implementation strategies at the intersection between the preparation and active implementation stages of an implementation process. Limitations and implications for research and practice are discussed. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05240222. Registered on: 2/14/2022. Retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05240222

BackgroundLongitudinal tracking of implementation strategies is critical in accurately reporting when and why they are used, for promoting rigor and reproducibility in implementation research, and could facilitate generalizable knowledge if similar methods are used across research projects. This article focuses on tracking dynamic changes in the use of implementation strategies over time within a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of an evidence-based electronic patient-reported oncology symptom assessment for cancer patient-reported outcomes in a single large healthcare system.MethodsThe Longitudinal Implementation Strategies Tracking System (LISTS), a timeline follow-back procedure for documenting strategy use and modifications, was applied to the multiyear study. The research team used observation, study records, and reports from implementers to complete LISTS in an electronic data entry system. Types of modifications and reasons were categorized. Determinants associated with each strategy were collected as a justification for strategy use and a potential explanation for strategy modifications.ResultsThirty-four discrete implementation strategies were used and at least one strategy was used from each of the nine strategy categories from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. Most of the strategies were introduced, used, and continued or discontinued according to a prospective implementation plan. Relatedly, a small number of strategies were introduced, the majority unplanned, because of the changing healthcare landscape, or to address an emergent barrier. Despite changing implementation context, there were relatively few modifications to the way strategies were enacted, such as a change in the actor, action, or dose. Few differences were noted between the trial's three regional units under investigation.ConclusionThis study occurred within the ambulatory oncology clinics of a large, academic medical center and was supported by the Quality team of the health system to ensure greater uptake, uniformity, and implementation within established practice change processes. The centralized nature of the implementation likely contributed to the relatively low proportion of modified strategies and the high degree of uniformity across regions. These results demonstrate the potential of LISTS in gathering the level of data needed to understand the impact of the many implementation strategies used to support adoption and delivery of a multilevel innovation.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04014751, identifier: NCT04014751.