Revisiting the policy ecology framework for implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Over the past three decades, policy actors and actions have been highly influential in supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in mental health settings. An early examination of these actions resulted in the Policy Ecology Framework (PEF), which was originally developed as a tactical primer for state and local mental health regulators in the field of child mental health. However, the policy landscape for implementation has evolved significantly since the original PEF was published. An interrogation of the strategies originally proposed in the PEF is necessary to provide an updated menu of strategies to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of policy action and promote system improvement.

Objectives

This paper builds upon the original PEF to address changes in the policy landscape for the implementation of mental health EBPs between 2009 and 2022. We review the current state of policy strategies that support the implementation of EBPs in mental health care and outline key areas for policy-oriented implementation research. Our review identifies policy strategies at federal, state, agency, and organizational levels, and highlights developments in the social context in which EBPs are implemented. Furthermore, our review is organized around some key changes that occurred across each PEF domain that span organizational, agency, political, and social contexts along with subdomains within each area.

Discussion

We present an updated menu of policy strategies to support the implementation of EBPs in mental health settings. This updated menu of strategies considers the broad range of conceptual developments and changes in the policy landscape. These developments have occurred across the organizational, agency, political, and social contexts and are important for policymakers to consider in the context of supporting the implementation of EBPs.

Summary

The updated PEF expands and enhances the specification of policy levers currently available, and identifies policy targets that are underdeveloped (e.g., de-implementation and sustainment) but are becoming visible opportunities for policy to support system improvement. The updated PEF clarifies current policy efforts within the field of implementation science in health to conceptualize and better operationalize the role of policy in the implementation of EBPs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-023-01309-9.

Related collections

Most cited references 82

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Laura Damschroder, David Aron, Rosalind E Keith … (2009)

Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

0 comments Cited 2637 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

Per Torgeir E Nilsen (2015)

Background Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Discussion Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). Summary This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.

0 comments Cited 833 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors

Gregory Aarons, Michael Hurlburt, Sarah Horwitz (2010)

Implementation science is a quickly growing discipline. Lessons learned from business and medical settings are being applied but it is unclear how well they translate to settings with different historical origins and customs (e.g., public mental health, social service, alcohol/drug sectors). The purpose of this paper is to propose a multi-level, four phase model of the implementation process (i.e., Exploration, Adoption/Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment), derived from extant literature, and apply it to public sector services. We highlight features of the model likely to be particularly important in each phase, while considering the outer and inner contexts (i.e., levels) of public sector service systems.

0 comments Cited 482 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Whitney K. Wortham:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6221-1220

ww1053@nyu.edu

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Implement Sci

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Implement Sci

Title: Implementation Science : IS

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1748-5908

Publication date (Electronic): 7 November 2023

Publication date PMC-release: 7 November 2023

Publication date Collection: 2023

Volume: 18

Electronic Location Identifier: 58

Affiliations

[1 ]Silver School of Social Work, New York University, ( https://ror.org/0190ak572) 1 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10003 USA

[2 ]Department of Public Health Policy & Management, Global Center for Implementation Science, School of Global Public Health, New York University, ( https://ror.org/0190ak572) 708 Broadway, New York, NY 10003 USA

Author information

Whitney K. Wortham http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6221-1220

Article

Publisher ID: 1309

DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01309-9

PMC ID: 10629012

SO-VID: 13eaa27e-5dc2-483b-b9aa-fc6832d4cb72

License:

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 3 March 2023

Date accepted : 1 October 2023

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: mental health,evidence-based practice,mental health parity,consumer involvement,de-implementation,adoption,sustainment

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: mental health, evidence-based practice, mental health parity, consumer involvement, de-implementation, adoption, sustainment

Revisiting the policy ecology framework for implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Discussion

Summary

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Emerald: Healthier Lives

Most cited references 82

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 40

Most referenced authors 1,654