Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Vending machines for harm reduction (VMHR) are an innovative approach to deliver life-saving materials, information, and treatment for hard-to-reach populations, particularly for persons who inject drugs. The current study explores stakeholders’ perspectives on the feasibility and acceptability of VMHR in Philadelphia. Methods From October 2021 to February 2022, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with potential end users, staff, and leadership at a local federally qualified health center, and community members. Trained coders extracted themes from interview transcripts across four key domains: materials and logistics, location, access, and community introduction. Results Interviewees from all stakeholder groups endorsed using VMHR to provide supplies for wound care, fentanyl test strips, naloxone, and materials to connect individuals to treatment and other services. Dispensing syringes and medications for opioid use disorder were commonly endorsed by health center staff but were more controversial among potential end users. Even within stakeholder groups, views varied with respect to where to locate the machines, but most agreed that the machine should be placed in the highest drug use areas. Across stakeholder groups, interviewees suggested several strategies to introduce and gain community acceptance of VMHR, including community education, one-on-one conversations with community members, and coupling the machine with safe disposal of syringes and information to link individuals to treatment. Conclusions Stakeholders were generally receptive to VMHR. The current study findings are consistent with qualitative analyses from outside of the USA and contribute new ideas regarding the anticipated community response and best methods for introducing these machines to a community. With thoughtful planning and design, VMHR could be a feasible and acceptable modality to reduce death and disease transmission associated with the opioid and HIV epidemics in cities like Philadelphia.

Exposure therapy for anxiety and related disorders is the psychological intervention with the strongest support for its efficacy and effectiveness to date. Yet, it is the least used evidence-based intervention in routine clinical practice, with a long-acknowledged public relations problem. Despite a wealth of research aimed at improving uptake of exposure, exposure’s marketing and branding remains an untapped target. We first introduce principles from the marketing literature to propose that the field take steps toward a rebranding and repackaging of exposure therapy to support efforts to implement it widely. Second, we present preliminary data on clinician preferences for the use of alternative terminology developed to be more palatable and marketable - “Supported Approach of Feared Experiences – Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (SAFE-CBT)” - compared to traditional terminology. This initial survey indicated that most clinicians preferred use of the SAFE-CBT term when talking to patients, whereas only a minority preferred it for use among training clinicians. We conclude by discussing implications of these results for future efforts to implement exposure therapy more widely and set an agenda for future research in this space.

Background Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are among the best tools available to combat the opioid epidemic. Yet, use of MOUD among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains low. Interventions to increase MOUD access in the United States have largely focused on improving organizational capacity and addressing funding barriers, yet stigma toward MOUD may inhibit uptake even where MOUD is readily available. Non-prescribing substance use disorder (SUD) treatment professionals (e.g. counselors) likely have considerable influence on a client’s choice to initiate and adhere to MOUD, but beliefs that counselors convey about MOUD in interaction with clients are understudied. The current study explores what advantages and disadvantages that counselors communicate about buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. Methods From June to December 2021, we surveyed counselors from publicly-funded SUD treatment agencies under a municipality-wide mandate to offer MOUD to all clients with OUD. Counselors were asked to describe, in a free-response format, the most important advantages and disadvantages to communicate to their clients about taking buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. Counselor responses were coded for one or more advantage and disadvantage. Results A total of 271 SUD counselors from 29 agencies in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area completed the survey, generating 1,995 advantages and disadvantages across three types of MOUD. The most frequently reported advantage across all three types of MOUD was their ability to reduce cravings and illicit drug use. The most frequently reported disadvantage related to the potential for some types of MOUD to develop long-term medication dependence. Conclusions As the availability and variety of MOUD treatment options continue to expand, it is important that SUD counselors are equipped with evidence-based recommendations for OUD care. We identified misalignments with the MOUD-prescribing evidence base and stigmatizing language toward MOUD within counselors’ responses, highlighting the potential to refine training materials for MOUD and mitigate stigmatizing beliefs.

Background In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched the Penn Medicine Coping First Aid program to provide psychosocial supports to our health system community. Our approach leveraged lay health worker volunteers trained in principles of Psychological First Aid to deliver coaching services through a centralized virtual platform. Methods We emailed all ( n  = 408) first year housestaff (i.e., residents and fellows) with an invitation to schedule a session with a resilience coach. We compared the mental health concerns, symptoms, and Psychological First Aid techniques recorded in ( n  = 67) first year housestaff sessions with ( n  = 91) sessions of other employees in the health system. Results Between June and November 2020, forty-six first year housestaff attended at least one resilience coaching session. First year housestaff most commonly presented with feelings of anxiety and sadness and shared concerns related to the availability of social support. Resilience coaches most frequently provided practical assistance and ensured safety and comfort to first year housestaff. First year housestaff reported fewer physical or mental health symptoms and held shorter sessions with resilience coaches than non-housestaff. Conclusions This work offers insights on how to address psychosocial functioning through low-intensity interventions delivered by lay personnel. More research is needed to understand the efficacy of this program and how best to engage housestaff in wellness and resilience programs throughout training, both during and beyond COVID-19.

Background Participatory design methods are a key component of designing tailored implementation strategies. These methods vary in the resources required to execute and analyze their outputs. No work to date has examined the extent to which the output obtained from different approaches to participatory design varies. Methods We concurrently used two separate participatory design methods: (1) field observations and qualitative interviews (i.e., traditional contextual inquiry) and (2) rapid crowd sourcing (an innovation tournament). Our goal was to generate and compare information to tailor implementation strategies to increase the use of evidence-based data collection practices among one-to-one aides working with children with autism. Each method was executed and analyzed by study team members blinded to the output of the other method. We estimated the personnel time and monetary costs associated with each method to further facilitate comparison. Results Observations and interviews generated nearly double the number of implementation strategies ( n  = 26) than did the innovation tournament ( n  = 14). When strategies were classified into implementation strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, there was considerable overlap in the content of identified strategies. However, strategies derived from observations and interviews were more specific than those from the innovation tournament. Five strategies (13%) reflected content unique to observations and interviews and 3 (8%) strategies were unique to the innovation tournament. Only observations and interviews identified implementation strategies related to adapting and tailoring to context; only the innovation tournament identified implementation strategies that used incentives. Observations and interviews required more than three times the personnel hours than the innovation tournament, but the innovation tournament was more costly overall due to the technological platform used. Conclusions There was substantial overlap in content derived from observations and interviews and the innovation tournament, although there was greater specificity in the findings from observations and interviews. However, the innovation tournament yielded unique information. To select the best participatory design approach to inform implementation strategy design for a particular context, researchers should carefully consider unique advantages of each method and weigh the resources available to invest in the process.

Background In healthcare settings, system and organization leaders often control the selection and design of implementation strategies even though frontline workers may have the most intimate understanding of the care delivery process, and factors that optimize and constrain evidence-based practice implementation within the local system. Innovation tournaments, a structured participatory design strategy to crowdsource ideas, are a promising approach to participatory design that may increase the effectiveness of implementation strategies by involving end users (i.e., clinicians). We utilized a system-wide innovation tournament to garner ideas from clinicians about how to enhance the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within a large public behavioral health system. Methods Our innovation tournament occurred in three phases. First, we invited over 500 clinicians to share, through a web-based platform, their ideas regarding how their organizations could best support use of EBPs. Clinicians could rate and comment on ideas submitted by others. Second, submissions were judged by an expert panel (including behavioral scientists, system leaders, and payers) based on their rated enthusiasm for the idea. Third, we held a community-facing event during which the six clinicians who submitted winning ideas presented their strategies to 85 attendees representing a cross-section of clinicians and system and organizational leaders. Results We had a high rate of participation (12.3%), more than double the average rate of previous tournaments conducted in other settings (5%). A total of 65 ideas were submitted by 55 participants representing 38 organizations. The most common categories of ideas pertained to training (42%), financing and compensation (26%), clinician support and preparation tools (22%), and EBP-focused supervision (17%). The expert panel and clinicians differed on their ratings of the ideas, highlighting value of seeking input from multiple stakeholder groups when developing implementation strategies. Conclusions Innovation tournaments are a useful and feasible methodology for engaging end users, system leaders, and behavioral scientists through a structured approach to developing implementation strategies. The process and resultant strategies engendered significant enthusiasm and engagement from participants at all levels of a healthcare system. Research is needed to compare the effectiveness of strategies developed through innovation tournaments to strategies developed through design approaches.

Background The harms of opioid use disorder (OUD) and HIV infection disproportionately impact marginalized populations, especially people experiencing homelessness and people who inject drugs (PWID). Mobile OUD service delivery models are emerging to increase access and reduce barriers to OUD care. While there is growing interest in these models, there is limited research about the services they provide, how they operate, and what barriers they face. We characterize the capacity, barriers, and sustainment of mobile OUD care services in a large city with a high incidence of OUD and HIV. Methods From May to August 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership from all seven mobile OUD care units (MOCU) providing a medication for OUD or other substance use disorder services in Philadelphia. We surveyed leaders about their unit’s services, staffing, operating location, funding sources, and linkages to care. Leaders were asked to describe their clinical approach, treatment process, and the barriers and facilitators to their operations. Interview recordings were coded using rapid qualitative analysis. Results MOCUs are run by small, multidisciplinary teams, typically composed of a clinician, one or two case managers, and a peer recovery specialist or outreach worker. MOCUs provide a range of services, including medications for OUD, wound care, medical services, case management, and screening for infectious diseases. No units provide methadone, but all units provide naloxone, six write prescriptions for buprenorphine, and one unit dispenses buprenorphine. The most frequently reported barriers include practical challenges of working on a MOCU (e.g. lack of space, safety), lack of community support, and patients with substantial medical and psychosocial needs. Interviewees reported concerns about funding and specifically as it relates to providing their staff with adequate pay. The most frequently reported facilitators include positive relationships with the community, collaboration with other entities (e.g. local nonprofits, the police department, universities), and having non-clinical staff (e.g. outreach workers, peer recovery specialists) on the unit. Conclusions MOCUs provide life-saving services and engage marginalized individuals with OUD. These findings highlight the challenges and complexities of caring for PWID and demonstrate a need to strengthen collaborations between MOCU providers and the treatment system. Policymakers should consider programmatic funding for permanent mobile OUD care services.

Background Community behavioral health clinicians, supervisors, and administrators play an essential role in implementing new psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBP) for patients receiving psychiatric care; however, little is known about these stakeholders’ values and preferences for implementation strategies that support EBP use, nor how best to elicit, quantify, or segment their preferences. This study sought to quantify these stakeholders’ preferences for implementation strategies and to identify segments of stakeholders with distinct preferences using a rigorous choice experiment method called best-worst scaling. Methods A total of 240 clinicians, 74 clinical supervisors, and 29 administrators employed within clinics delivering publicly-funded behavioral health services in a large metropolitan behavioral health system participated in a best-worst scaling choice experiment. Participants evaluated 14 implementation strategies developed through extensive elicitation and pilot work within the target system. Preference weights were generated for each strategy using hierarchical Bayesian estimation. Latent class analysis identified segments of stakeholders with unique preference profiles. Results On average, stakeholders preferred two strategies significantly more than all others—compensation for use of EBP per session and compensation for preparation time to use the EBP ( P  < .05); two strategies were preferred significantly less than all others—performance feedback via email and performance feedback via leaderboard ( P  < .05). However, latent class analysis identified four distinct segments of stakeholders with unique preferences: Segment 1 ( n  = 121, 35%) strongly preferred financial incentives over all other approaches and included more administrators; Segment 2 ( n  = 80, 23%) preferred technology-based strategies and was younger, on average; Segment 3 ( n  = 52, 15%) preferred an improved waiting room to enhance client readiness, strongly disliked any type of clinical consultation, and had the lowest participation in local EBP training initiatives; Segment 4 ( n  = 90, 26%) strongly preferred clinical consultation strategies and included more clinicians in substance use clinics. Conclusions The presence of four heterogeneous subpopulations within this large group of clinicians, supervisors, and administrators suggests optimal implementation may be achieved through targeted strategies derived via elicitation of stakeholder preferences. Best-worst scaling is a feasible and rigorous method for eliciting stakeholders’ implementation preferences and identifying subpopulations with unique preferences in behavioral health settings.

Background Informed by our prior work indicating that therapists do not feel recognized or rewarded for implementation of evidence-based practices, we tested the feasibility and acceptability of two incentive-based implementation strategies that seek to improve therapist adherence to cognitive-behavioral therapy for youth, an evidence-based practice. Methods This study was conducted over 6 weeks in two community mental health agencies with therapists ( n  = 11) and leaders ( n  = 4). Therapists were randomized to receive either a financial or social incentive if they achieved a predetermined criterion on adherence to cognitive-behavioral therapy. In the first intervention period (block 1; 2 weeks), therapists received the reward they were initially randomized to if they achieved criterion. In the second intervention period (block 2; 2 weeks), therapists received both rewards if they achieved criterion. Therapists recorded 41 sessions across 15 unique clients over the project period. Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility was assessed quantitatively. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with therapists and leaders to assess acceptability. Difference in therapist adherence by condition was examined as an exploratory outcome. Adherence ratings were ascertained using an established and validated observational coding system of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Results Both implementation strategies were feasible and acceptable—however, modifications to study design for the larger trial will be necessary based on participant feedback. With respect to our exploratory analysis, we found a trend suggesting the financial reward may have had a more robust effect on therapist adherence than the social reward. Conclusions Incentive-based implementation strategies can be feasibly administered in community mental health agencies with good acceptability, although iterative pilot work is essential. Larger, fully powered trials are needed to compare the effectiveness of implementation strategies to incentivize and enhance therapists’ adherence to evidence-based practices such as cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Background School mental health care often is provided by teams contracted from community mental health agencies. The team members that provide this care, however, do not typically receive training in how to work effectively in a team-based context. Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) provides a promising, evidence-based strategy for improving communication and climate in school-based teams. Methods In collaboration with stakeholders, we adapted and piloted TeamSTEPPS for use with school mental health teams. Teams in six schools were randomized to receive the adapted TeamSTEPPS approach or usual supports. The main outcomes of interest were feasibility and acceptability of the adapted TeamSTEPPS strategy. Results Results indicated that team member burnout was significantly higher at follow-up than pretreatment for both control and intervention teams. TeamSTEPPS was feasible and acceptable to implement, and leadership emerged as an important facilitator. Barriers to implementation success included staff turnover, lack of resources, and challenges in the school mental health team relationship. Additional supports to implement TeamSTEPPS were suggested, including ongoing consultation and booster training to address high staff turnover. Conclusions Results suggest that TeamSTEPPS is promising for school mental health teams but additional modifications are likely needed.