11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Technology-Enabled Person-Centered Mental Health Services Reform: Strategy for Implementation Science

      research-article
      , BS, MA, PhD, ABPP-CN 1 , , , BA (Hons), eMBA 1 , , BPsy (Hons) 2 , , DipHthSc, BN 2 , , GradDip, Psych (Hons) 1 , , BN, BASc, Grad Dip MH, MN (Clinical Leadership) 2 , , AM, MD, FRANZCP, FASSA 1 , , BPsy (Hons), MPsych, PhD 1
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR Mental Health
      JMIR Publications
      implementation science, mental health, health care reform, technology, community-based participatory research

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Health information technologies are being rapidly developed to improve the delivery of mental health care; however, a range of facilitators, barriers, and contextual conditions can impact the adoption and sustainment of these solutions. An implementation science protocol supports researchers to achieve primary effectiveness goals in relation to mental health services reform and aids in the optimization of implementation processes to promote quality health care, prolonging sustainability.

          Objective

          The aim of this paper is to describe our implementation science protocol, which serves as a foundation by which to systematically guide the implementation of technology-enabled solutions in traditional face-to-face and Web-based mental health services, allowing for revisions over time on the basis of retrospective review and constructive feedback from the services in which the technology-enabled solutions are implemented.

          Methods

          Our implementation science protocol comprises four phases. The primary objective of the scoping and feasibility phase (Phase 1) is to determine the alignment between the service partner and the quality improvement goals supported by the technology-enabled solution. This is followed by Phase 2, the local co-design and preimplementation phase, which aims to utilize co-design methodologies, including service pathway modelling, participatory design, and user (acceptance) testing, to determine how the solutions could be used to enhance the service. In Phase 3, implementation, the accepted solution is embedded in the mental health service to achieve better outcomes for consumers and their families as well as health professionals and service managers. Using iterative evaluative processes throughout Phase 3, the solution is continuously developed, designed, and refined during implementation to adapt to the changing needs of the stakeholders, including consumers with lived experience and their families as well as the service. Thus, the primary outcome of Phase 3 is the optimized technology-enabled solution that can be maintained in a service during the sustainment and scalability phase (Phase 4) for the purposes of mental health services reform.

          Results

          Funding for the protocol was provided by the Australian Government Department of Health in June of 2017 for a period of 3 years. At the time of this publication, the protocol had been initiated in 11 services, serving three populations, all of which are currently operating in Phase 3. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2020.

          Conclusions

          With the aim of improving mental health service quality, our implementation science protocol aids in the identification of factors that predict the likelihood of implementation success, as well as the development of strategies to proactively mitigate potential barriers to achieve better implementation outcomes. Putting in place a theoretically sound implementation science protocol is essential to facilitate the uptake of novel technology-enabled solutions and evidence-based practices into routine clinical practice for the purposes of improved outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care.

          Experts consider health information technology key to improving efficiency and quality of health care. To systematically review evidence on the effect of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of health care. The authors systematically searched the English-language literature indexed in MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Abstracts Database. We also added studies identified by experts up to April 2005. Descriptive and comparative studies and systematic reviews of health information technology. Two reviewers independently extracted information on system capabilities, design, effects on quality, system acquisition, implementation context, and costs. 257 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies addressed decision support systems or electronic health records. Approximately 25% of the studies were from 4 academic institutions that implemented internally developed systems; only 9 studies evaluated multifunctional, commercially developed systems. Three major benefits on quality were demonstrated: increased adherence to guideline-based care, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, and decreased medication errors. The primary domain of improvement was preventive health. The major efficiency benefit shown was decreased utilization of care. Data on another efficiency measure, time utilization, were mixed. Empirical cost data were limited. Available quantitative research was limited and was done by a small number of institutions. Systems were heterogeneous and sometimes incompletely described. Available financial and contextual data were limited. Four benchmark institutions have demonstrated the efficacy of health information technologies in improving quality and efficiency. Whether and how other institutions can achieve similar benefits, and at what costs, are unclear.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice.

            Although numerous studies address the efficacy and effectiveness of health interventions, less research addresses successfully implementing and sustaining interventions. As long as efficacy and effectiveness trials are considered complete without considering implementation in nonresearch settings, the public health potential of the original investments will not be realized. A barrier to progress is the absence of a practical, robust model to help identify the factors that need to be considered and addressed and how to measure success. A conceptual framework for improving practice is needed to integrate the key features for successful program design, predictors of implementation and diffusion, and appropriate outcome measures. A comprehensive model for translating research into practice was developed using concepts from the areas of quality improvement, chronic care, the diffusion of innovations, and measures of the population-based effectiveness of translation. PRISM--the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model--evaluates how the health care program or intervention interacts with the recipients to influence program adoption, implementation, maintenance, reach, and effectiveness. The PRISM model provides a new tool for researchers and health care decision makers that integrates existing concepts relevant to translating research into practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature

              Background eHealth has an enormous potential to improve healthcare cost, effectiveness, and quality of care. However, there seems to be a gap between the foreseen benefits of research and clinical reality. Objective Our objective was to systematically review the factors influencing the outcome of eHealth interventions in terms of success and failure. Methods We searched the PubMed database for original peer-reviewed studies on implemented eHealth tools that reported on the factors for the success or failure, or both, of the intervention. We conducted the systematic review by following the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework, with 2 of the authors independently reviewing the abstract and full text of the articles. We collected data using standardized forms that reflected the categorization model used in the qualitative analysis of the outcomes reported in the included articles. Results Among the 903 identified articles, a total of 221 studies complied with the inclusion criteria. The studies were heterogeneous by country, type of eHealth intervention, method of implementation, and reporting perspectives. The article frequency analysis did not show a significant discrepancy between the number of reports on failure (392/844, 46.5%) and on success (452/844, 53.6%). The qualitative analysis identified 27 categories that represented the factors for success or failure of eHealth interventions. A quantitative analysis of the results revealed the category quality of healthcare (n=55) as the most mentioned as contributing to the success of eHealth interventions, and the category costs (n=42) as the most mentioned as contributing to failure. For the category with the highest unique article frequency, workflow (n=51), we conducted a full-text review. The analysis of the 23 articles that met the inclusion criteria identified 6 barriers related to workflow: workload (n=12), role definition (n=7), undermining of face-to-face communication (n=6), workflow disruption (n=6), alignment with clinical processes (n=2), and staff turnover (n=1). Conclusions The reviewed literature suggested that, to increase the likelihood of success of eHealth interventions, future research must ensure a positive impact in the quality of care, with particular attention given to improved diagnosis, clinical management, and patient-centered care. There is a critical need to perform in-depth studies of the workflow(s) that the intervention will support and to perceive the clinical processes involved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Ment Health
                JMIR Ment Health
                JMH
                JMIR Mental Health
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2368-7959
                September 2019
                19 September 2019
                : 6
                : 9
                : e14719
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Brain and Mind Centre The University of Sydney Camperdown Australia
                [2 ] InnoWell Pty Ltd Camperdown Australia
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Haley M LaMonica haley.lamonica@ 123456sydney.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6563-5467
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4218-9238
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1032-9080
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8307-6200
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3344-0382
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3151-2872
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8832-9895
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5413-8342
                Article
                v6i9e14719
                10.2196/14719
                6786853
                31538938
                5a24540e-f929-4aa9-97f3-bad12462e13f
                ©Haley M LaMonica, Tracey A Davenport, Katharine Braunstein, Antonia Ottavio, Sarah Piper, Craig Martin, Ian B Hickie, Shane Cross. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (http://mental.jmir.org), 19.09.2019.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mental.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 17 May 2019
                : 8 June 2019
                : 2 July 2019
                : 23 July 2019
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                implementation science,mental health,health care reform,technology,community-based participatory research

                Comments

                Comment on this article