No abstract

Background: The RE-AIM framework has been widely used in health research but it is unclear the extent to which this framework is also used for planning and evaluating health-related programs in clinical and community settings. Our objective was to evaluate how RE-AIM is used in the “real-world” and identify opportunities for improving use outside of research contexts.Methods: We used purposive and snowball sampling to identify clinical and community health programs that used RE-AIM for planning and/or evaluation. Recruitment methods included surveys with email follow-up to funders, implementers, and RE-AIM working group members. We identified 17 programs and conducted structured in-depth interviews with key informants (n = 18). Across RE-AIM dimensions, respondents described motivations, uses, and measures; rated understandability and usefulness; discussed benefits and challenges, strategies to overcome challenges, and resources used. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative ratings, and content analysis for qualitative data.Results: Program content areas included chronic disease management and prevention, healthy aging, mental health, or multiple, often behavioral health-related topics. During planning, most programs considered reach (n = 9), adoption (n = 11), and implementation (n = 12) while effectiveness (n = 7) and maintenance (n = 6) were considered less frequently. In contrast, most programs evaluated all RE-AIM dimensions, ranging from 13 programs assessing maintenance to 15 programs assessing implementation and effectiveness. On five-point scales, all RE-AIM dimensions were rated as easy to understand (Overall M = 4.7 ± 0.5), but obtaining data was rated as somewhat challenging (Overall M = 3.4 ± 0.9). Implementation was the most frequently used dimension to inform program design (M = 4.7 ± 0.6) relative to the other dimensions (3.0–3.9). All dimensions were considered similarly important for decision-making (average M = 4.1 ± 1.4), with the exception of maintenance (M = 3.4 ± 1.7). Qualitative corresponded to the quantitative findings in that RE-AIM was reported to be a practical, easy to understand, and well-established implementation science framework. Challenges included understanding differences among RE-AIM dimensions and data acquisition. Valuable resources included the RE-AIM website and collaborating with an expert.Discussion: RE-AIM is an efficient framework for planning and evaluation of clinical and community-based projects. It provides structure to systematically evaluate health program impact. Programs found planning for and assessing maintenance difficult, providing opportunities for further refinement.

BackgroundDespite the availability of psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs), treatment and outcomes for persons with mental disorders remain suboptimal. Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an effective implementation strategy, still resulted in less than half of sites using an EBP. The primary aim of this cluster randomized trial is to determine, among sites not initially responding to REP, the effect of adaptive implementation strategies that begin with an External Facilitator (EF) or with an External Facilitator plus an Internal Facilitator (IF) on improved EBP use and patient outcomes in 12 months.Methods/DesignThis study employs a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design to build an adaptive implementation strategy. The EBP to be implemented is life goals (LG) for patients with mood disorders across 80 community-based outpatient clinics (N N = 1,600 patients) from different U.S. regions. Sites not initially responding to REP (defined as <50% patients receiving ≥3 EBP sessions) will be randomized to receive additional support from an EF or both EF/IF. Additionally, sites randomized to EF and still not responsive will be randomized to continue with EF alone or to receive EF/IF. The EF provides technical expertise in adapting LG in routine practice, whereas the on-site IF has direct reporting relationships to site leadership to support LG use in routine practice. The primary outcome is mental health-related quality of life; secondary outcomes include receipt of LG sessions, mood symptoms, implementation costs, and organizational change.DiscussionThis study design will determine whether an off-site EF alone versus the addition of an on-site IF improves EBP uptake and patient outcomes among sites that do not respond initially to REP. It will also examine the value of delaying the provision of EF/IF for sites that continue to not respond despite EF.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02151331Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0132-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a policy in 2012 that penalizes hospitals for ‘excessive’ all-cause hospital readmissions within 30 days after discharge for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of psychiatric comorbidities on 30-day all-cause readmissions for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. Methods Longitudinal study from 2009-2011 within 11 Mental Health Research Network (MHRN) affiliated health systems. Data were derived from the HMO Research Network Virtual Data Warehouse. Participants were individuals admitted to the hospital for HF, AMI, and pneumonia. All index inpatient hospitalizations for HF, AMI and pneumonia were captured (n=160,169 patient index admissions). Psychiatric diagnoses were measured for the year prior to admission. All-cause readmissions within 30 days of discharge were the outcome variable. Results Approximately 18% of all individuals with these conditions were readmitted within 30-days. The rate was 5% greater for individuals with a past-year psychiatric comorbidity (21.7%) than for those without (16.5%; p<.001). Depression, anxiety, and dementia were associated with more readmissions for those with index hospitalizations for all three conditions independently and combined (p<.05). Substance use and bipolar disorders were linked with higher readmissions for those with initial HF and pneumonia hospitalizations (p<.05). Readmission rates declined overall from 2009-2011. Conclusions Individuals with HF, AMI, and pneumonia experience high rates of readmission, but psychiatric comorbidities appear to increase that risk. Future readmission interventions should consider adding mental health components.

The objective of this study was to examine psychological processes in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in relation to measures of life stress, coping styles, social support and cognitive ability. Fifty-two SLE patients without overt neuropsychiatric symptoms, 29 RA patients and 27 healthy controls completed measures of depression, mood, disease activity, perceived health, stressful life events, coping, and social support. Variables entered into the multiple regression analysis following principal component analysis were: group, major difficult event, major life threatening event, disengaging coping, emotional coping, social support, and cognitive impairment. Depressive symptoms were associated with SLE group status (P < 0.001), major life-threatening events (P < 0.01), disengage coping (P < 0.001) and emotional coping (P < 0.05). SLE group status (P < 0.05), disengage coping (P < 0.05) and emotional coping (P < 0.05) were associated with current distressed mood. SLE patients without overt, major neuropsychiatric symptoms had greater psychological distress compared to RA and control subjects. Increased depressive symptoms and distressed mood state in SLE patients were related to use of disengaging and emotional coping styles. These findings are limited to SLE patients with no overt neuropsychiatric illness and low disease activity, suggesting the need for future studies with a greater variety of SLE patients. Interventions aimed at improving active coping and minimizing emotional response to stress may lower psychological distress in SLE patients with mild disease.

Persons with mental illnesses use tobacco at significantly higher and heavier rates than the general population, and suffer greater tobacco- related morbidity and mortality. However, there are few existing tobacco cessation interventions for these individuals. This study examined two tobacco cessation interventions, a telephonic quitline intervention (counseling and nicotine replacement therapy) and a community-based group counseling intervention with adults currently receiving community mental health services. At 6-month follow-up, both groups demonstrated significantly reduced tobacco use, but participants who received both quitline services and the group counseling intervention were significantly more likely to have a 50% tobacco use reduction. Across groups, the overall intent-to-treat cessation rate was 7%. Tobacco dependence, depression symptoms, and psychotic symptoms decreased significantly for all treatment groups, while health and mental health functioning increased. Findings suggest that common community tobacco cessation services are effective for this population.

These findings are instructive in developing appropriate tobacco cessation services for this population. Specifically, these data have been incorporated into a mental health provider toolkit for smoking cessation and have informed the development of a tobacco cessation intervention study.

Background We determined whether application of a novel implementation intervention (Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs-REP) versus its standard, dissemination-focused version (REP) improved fidelity to bipolar disorder treatment (Life Goals Collaborative Care- LGCC). Methods Five community practices from Michigan and Colorado were randomized to receive LGCC using Enhanced or standard REP. One provider at each practice implemented LGCC which included patient self-management support (4 group sessions focused on symptoms and behavior goals), guideline dissemination to providers, and ongoing phone care management focused on maintaining behavior goals and provider engagement. Standard REP included intervention packaging (i.e., translation of LGCC core components into user-friendly language), training, and as-needed technical assistance. Enhanced REP added customization of LGCC and ongoing, proactive technical assistance through an internal and external facilitator that focused on enhancing provider buy-in and uptake. Multiple and logistic regression analyses determined the impact on patient-level LGCC fidelity between Enhanced versus standard REP. Results Participants (N=384; mean age = 42 years, 67% women, 29% nonwhite) averaged 3.0 out of 4 LGCC group sessions and had 4.0 care management contacts. Enhanced REP implementation was associated with 2.6 (p<.001) greater total number of sessions/contacts than standard REP, which was driven by 2.5 (p<.01) more care management contacts, after adjusting for patient factors. Women and those with a history of homelessness received fewer sessions. Conclusions Enhanced REP implementation was associated with improved LGCC fidelity, primarily for care management contacts. Additional customization of interventions such as LGCC may be needed to ensure adequate treatment fidelity for key vulnerable populations.