Cited by 40Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and Education

Change in Patient Outcomes After Augmenting a Low-level Implementation Strategy in Community Practices That Are Slow to Adopt a Collaborative Chronic Care Model: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial

Open access
Smith, Shawna N., Almirall, Daniel, Prenovost, Katherine, Liebrecht, Celeste, Kyle, Julia, Eisenberg, Daniel, Bauer, Mark S., Kilbourne, Amy M.·2019·Medical Care

Abstract

Background: Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics. Objectives: To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support. Research Design: Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF). Measures: The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18. Results: Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59–13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, –0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30–1.49) than REP+EF patients. Conclusions: Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0000000000001138

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [25]Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA, Bauer MS, Stall R. Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci. 2007; 2: 42. 18067681 PMC2248206
  2. [30]Kilbourne AM, Goodrich DE, Lai Z, Reengaging veterans with serious mental illness into care: preliminary results from a national randomized trial. Psychiatric Services. 2014; 66(1): 90– 93. 25554233 PMC4640185

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, S. N., Almirall, D., Prenovost, K., Liebrecht, C., Kyle, J., Eisenberg, D., Bauer, M. S., & Kilbourne, A. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
  • Smith, Shawna N.
  • Prenovost, Katherine
  • Liebrecht, Celeste
  • Kyle, Julia
  • Kilbourne, Amy M.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2019-07
Volume
57
Issue
7
Pages
503-511
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946668669
Cited by
40
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4
FWCI
5.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH099898)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA039901)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
implementation strategies, depression, community clinics, external facilitation, evidence-based practice uptake, PHQ-9, SF-12
MeSH terms
Adult, Colorado, Community Mental Health Services, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Michigan, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Program Evaluation, Cluster Analysis, Program Development, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Models, Organizational, Evidence-Based Medicine, Intention to Treat Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review