Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: an Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges

In the citing paper

“These are all important considerations, because if the program lacks acceptability and feasibility, its efficacy in controlled clinical trials is unlikely to translate to effectiveness in diverse real-world settings (health care, education, etc.; Proctor et al., 2009).”

In the citing paper

“Glasgow et al4 and others17–20 argue that the time lag between research discovery and routine uptake is also inflated by the dominant developmental approach; that is, one that encourages delimited, step-wise progressions of research through clinical efficacy research, then clinical effectiveness research, and finally implementation research.”

In the citing paper

“Equity is a key service system outcome [1, 62].”

In the citing paper

“To study implementation outcomes, mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches can yield richer information than either method alone (Landsverk et al., 2012;Palinkas et al., 2011;Proctor et al., 2009).”

In the citing paper

“Similarly, Proctor et al.[46] have proposed a model that informs evaluation by differentiating implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, and identifying a range of implementation outcomes that can be assessed [24].”

In the citing paper

“These frameworks propose that implementation outcomes are a function of multiple types of broad factors that can be hierarchically organized to represent micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors.”

In the citing paper

“In order to ensure enough statistical power to test the effect of structural-level constructs on implementation outcomes, researchers must typically utilize exceptionally large samples that are typically difficult to obtain [17].”

In the citing paper

“sustainability and penetration constructs typically require very large sample sizes that are hard to obtain [102]”

In the citing paper

“Proctor et al. articulated a research agenda for DIS outcome evaluations that appears to have positively influenced instrument development.”

In the citing paper

“Implementation outcomes are typically measured in implementation activities, can advance understanding of the implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies [8].”

In the citing paper

“over one third (34.90%) of instruments for implementation outcomes have been developed since the seminal paper by Proctor et al. was published [8].”

In the citing paper

“The isolation and concrete operationalization of implementation outcomes, separate from service and client outcomes, was a unique and important addition to the literature (Table 1).”

In the citing paper

“Basing our work on the CFIR [7] and Implementation Outcomes Framework [8] provides a comprehensive conceptual framework, yet it is clear that DIS investigators employ diverse frameworks delineating unique constructs not included in the SIRC IRP [2].”