No abstract

Background The wide variety of dissemination and implementation designs now being used to evaluate and improve health systems and outcomes warrants review of the scope, features, and limitations of these designs. Methods This paper is one product of a design workgroup formed in 2013 by the National Institutes of Health to address dissemination and implementation research, and whose members represented diverse methodologic backgrounds, content focus areas, and health sectors. These experts integrated their collective knowledge on dissemination and implementation designs with searches of published evaluations strategies. Results This paper emphasizes randomized and non-randomized designs for the traditional translational research continuum or pipeline, which builds on existing efficacy and effectiveness trials to examine how one or more evidence-based clinical/prevention interventions are adopted, scaled up, and sustained in community or service delivery systems. We also mention other designs, including hybrid designs that combine effectiveness and implementation research, quality improvement designs for local knowledge, and designs that use simulation modeling.

BACKGROUNDDepression contributes to disability and there are ethnic/racial disparities in access and outcomes of care. Quality improvement (QI) programs for depression in primary care improve outcomes relative to usual care, but health, social and other community-based service sectors also support clients in under-resourced communities. Little is known about effects on client outcomes of strategies to implement depression QI across diverse sectors.OBJECTIVETo compare the effectiveness of Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) and Resources for Services (RS) to implement depression QI on clients’ mental health-related quality of life (HRQL) and services use.DESIGNMatched programs from health, social and other service sectors were randomized to community engagement and planning (promoting inter-agency collaboration) or resources for services (individual program technical assistance plus outreach) to implement depression QI toolkits in Hollywood-Metro and South Los Angeles.PARTICIPANTSFrom 93 randomized programs, 4,440 clients were screened and of 1,322 depressed by the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and providing contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 in 90 programs completed baseline or 6-month follow-up.MEASURESSelf-reported mental HRQL and probable depression (primary), physical activity, employment, homelessness risk factors (secondary) and services use.RESULTSCEP was more effective than RS at improving mental HRQL, increasing physical activity and reducing homelessness risk factors, rate of behavioral health hospitalization and medication visits among specialty care users (i.e. psychiatrists, mental health providers) while increasing depression visits among users of primary care/public health for depression and users of faith-based and park programs (each p < 0.05). Employment, use of antidepressants, and total contacts were not significantly affected (each p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONCommunity engagement to build a collaborative approach to implementing depression QI across diverse programs was more effective than resources for services for individual programs in improving mental HRQL, physical activity and homelessness risk factors, and shifted utilization away from hospitalizations and specialty medication visits toward primary care and other sectors, offering an expanded health-home model to address multiple disparities for depressed safety-net clients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2484-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To describe the history and evolution of the collaborative depression care model and new research aimed at enhancing dissemination. Method Four keynote speakers from the 2009 NIMH Annual Mental Health Services Meeting collaborated in this article in order to describe the history and evolution of collaborative depression care, adaptation of collaborative care to new populations and medical settings, and optimal ways to enhance dissemination of this model. Results Extensive evidence across 37 randomized trials has shown the effectiveness of collaborative care vs. usual primary care in enhancing quality of depression care and in improving depressive outcomes for up to 2 to 5 years. Collaborative care is currently being disseminated in large health care organizations such as the Veterans Administration and Kaiser Permanente, as well as in fee-for-services systems and federally funded clinic systems of care in multiple states. New adaptations of collaborative care are being tested in pediatric and ob-gyn populations as well as in populations of patients with multiple comorbid medical illnesses. New NIMH-funded research is also testing community-based participatory research approaches to collaborative care to attempt to decrease disparities of care in underserved minority populations. Conclusion Collaborative depression care has extensive research supporting the effectiveness of this model. New research and demonstration projects have focused on adapting this model to new populations and medical settings and on studying ways to optimally disseminate this approach to care, including developing financial models to incentivize dissemination and partnerships with community populations to enhance sustainability and to decrease disparities in quality of mental health care.