Evaluation of an implementation facilitation strategy for settings that experience significant implementation barriers
Open accessAbstract
Panel overviewThough several implementation and quality improvement strategies have been shown to be effective in implementing programs and practices in routine clinical settings [1,2], little work has been done in developing and testing implementation strategies in settings that experience significant implementation barriers.This VA funded study evaluated a highly partnered implementation facilitation (IF) strategy [3] within the context of a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) mandate for implementation of Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) [4].The IF strategy consisted of a national expert external facilitator (EF) and two internal regional facilitators (IRFs) who partnered with regional, medical center, and clinic leadership and staff in two VA regional networks to implement PC-MHI.Facilitators helped partners design/adapt their PC-MHI programs, develop site-specific implementation plans, and identify/address implementation barriers.They also identified and engaged key stakeholders at all organizational levels; conducted academic detailing, marketing, staff training, patient education, formative evaluation, and audit and feedback; assisted with technical issues; and established learning collaboratives.The EF had expertise in the evidence-base for PC-MHI and implementation activities.The IRF had protected time to support implementation activities, was embedded within the clinical organization at the regional level, and was familiar with local and regional organizational structures, procedures, culture, and clinical processes.We used a quasi-experimental, Hybrid Type III design [5] and mixed methods to test effectiveness of the IF strategy and document IF activities.National VA MH leadership has adopted this IF strategy for sites facing challenges to adopting evidencebased practices [4,6,7].This panel presents findings from the project's three components: A quantitative study of facilitation outcomes, a qualitative study of the facilitation process and its outcomes, and a qualitative study of facilitation skill transfer.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Studies that report process evaluation alongside effectiveness data demonstrate the importance of having the right individuals in the role with the right level of skills, knowledge, support and mentoring.
“Studies that report process evaluation alongside effectiveness data demonstrate the importance of having the right individuals in the role with the right level of skills, knowledge, support and mentoring [59, 60].”
From PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice (2015) · cites this paper as [60]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Ritchie, M. J., Kirchner, J. E., Parker, L. E., Curran, G. M., Fortney, J. C., Pitcock, J. A., Bonner, L. M., & Kilbourne, A. M.
- Affiliations
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ritchie, Mona J
- ORCID
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2015-08-14
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- S1
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4551776
- OpenAlex
- W1863595105
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 4.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Health Services Research and Development
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- implementation facilitation, implementation barriers, primary care mental health integration, Department of Veterans Affairs, stakeholder engagement, academic detailing, audit and feedback, learning collaborative, implementation planning, evidence-based practice adoption, skill transfer
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