Dataset Information

Evaluating the national multisite implementation of dialectical behaviour therapy in a community setting: a mixed methods approach.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The implementation of evidence-based interventions for borderline personality disorder in community settings is important given that individuals with this diagnosis are often extensive users of both inpatient and outpatient mental health services. Although work in this area is limited, previous studies have identified facilitators and barriers to successful DBT implementation. This study seeks to expand on previous work by evaluating a coordinated implementation of DBT in community settings at a national level. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder et al., Implementation Sci. 4:50, 2009) provided structural guidance for this national level coordinated implementation. METHODS:A mixed methods approach was utilised to explore the national multisite implementation of DBT from the perspective of team leaders and therapists who participated in the coordinated training and subsequent implementation of DBT. Qualitative interviews with DBT team leaders (n?=?8) explored their experiences of implementing DBT in their local service and was analysed using content analysis. Quantitative surveys from DBT therapists (n?=?74) examined their experience of multiple aspects of the implementation process including orienting the system, and preparations and support for implementation. Frequencies of responses were calculated. Written qualitative feedback was analysed using content analysis. RESULTS:Five themes were identified from the interview data: team formation, implementation preparation, client selection, service level challenges and team leader role. Participants identified team size and support for the team leader as key points for consideration in DBT implementation. Key challenges encountered were the lack of system support to facilitate phone coaching and a lack of allocated time to focus on DBT. Implementation facilitators included having dedicated team members and support from management. CONCLUSIONS:The barriers and facilitators identified in this study are broadly similar to those reported in previous research. Barriers and facilitators were identified across several domains of the CFIR and are consistent with a recently published DBT implementation Framework (Toms et al., Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 6: 2, 2019). Future research should pay particular attention to the domain of characteristics of individuals involved in DBT implementation. The results highlight the importance of a mandated service plan for the coordinated implementation of an evidence-based treatment in a public health service. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03180541; Registered June 7th 2017 'retrospectively registered'.

SUBMITTER: Flynn D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7227064 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the national multisite implementation of dialectical behaviour therapy in a community setting: a mixed methods approach.

Flynn Daniel D Joyce Mary M Gillespie Conall C Kells Mary M Swales Michaela M Spillane Ailbhe A Hurley Justina J Hayes Aoife A Gallagher Edel E Arensman Ella E Weihrauch Mareike M

BMC psychiatry 20200514 1

<h4>Background</h4>The implementation of evidence-based interventions for borderline personality disorder in community settings is important given that individuals with this diagnosis are often extensive users of both inpatient and outpatient mental health services. Although work in this area is limited, previous studies have identified facilitators and barriers to successful DBT implementation. This study seeks to expand on previous work by evaluating a coordinated implementation of DBT in comm ...[more]

PMID: 32410670

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) is noted to be an intervention with a growing body of evidence that demonstrates its efficacy in treating individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Evidence for the effectiveness of DBT in publicly funded community mental health settings is lacking however. No study to our knowledge has been published on the effectiveness of a 12 month standard DBT programme without adaptations for individuals with BPD in a publicly funded community mental health setting and no study has included data across multiple time-points. The main objective of the current study was to determine if completion of a 12 month DBT programme is associated with improved outcomes in terms of borderline symptoms, anxiety, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, depression and quality of life. A secondary objective includes assessing client progress across multiple time-points throughout the treatment. METHODS:Fifty-four adult participants with BPD completed the standard DBT programme across four sites in community mental health settings in the Republic of Ireland. Data was collected by the DBT therapists working with participants and took place at 8 week intervals across the 12 month programme. To explore the effects of the intervention for participants, linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate change utilising data available from all time-points. RESULTS:At the end of the 12 month programme, significant reductions in borderline symptoms, anxiety, hopelessness, suicidal ideation and depression were observed. Increases in overall quality of life were also noted. In particular, gains were made during the first 6 months of the programme. There was a tendency for scores to slightly regress after the six-month mark which marks the start of the second delivery of the group skills cycles. CONCLUSIONS:The current study provides evidence for the effectiveness of standard DBT in publicly funded community mental health settings. As participants were assessed at the end of every module, it was possible to observe trends in symptom reduction during each stage of the intervention. Despite real-world limitations of applying DBT in community settings, the results of this study are comparable with more tightly controlled studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03166579; Registered May 24th 2017 'retrospectively registered'.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth has been increasingly adopted by health care systems since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although telehealth may provide convenience for patients and clinicians, there are several barriers to accessing it and using it effectively to provide high-quality patient care.ObjectiveThis study was part of a larger multisite community-engaged study conducted to understand the impact of COVID-19 on diverse communities. The work described here explored the perceptions of and experience with telehealth use among diverse and underserved community members during COVID-19.MethodsWe used mixed methods across three regions in the United States (Midwest, Arizona, and Florida) from January to November 2021. We promoted our study through social media and community partnerships, disseminating flyers in English and Spanish. We developed a moderator guide and conducted focus groups in English and Spanish, mostly using a videoconferencing platform. Participants were placed in focus groups with others who shared similar demographic attributes and geographic location. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. We analyzed our qualitative data using the framework analytic approach. We developed our broader survey using validated scales and with input from community and scientific leaders, which was then distributed through social media in both English and Spanish. We included a previously published questionnaire that had been used to assess perceptions about telehealth among patients with HIV. We analyzed our quantitative data using SAS software and standard statistical approaches. We examined the effect of region, age, ethnicity/race, and education on the use and perceptions of telehealth.ResultsWe included data from 47 focus groups. Owing to our mode of dissemination, we were not able to calculate a response rate for the survey. However, we received 3447 English-language and 146 Spanish-language responses. Over 90% of participants had internet access and 94% had used telehealth. Approximately half of all participants agreed or strongly agreed that telehealth would be beneficial in the future because it better fit their schedules and they would not need to travel. However, approximately half of the participants also agreed or strongly agreed they would not be able to express themselves well and could not be examined when using telehealth. Indigenous participants were especially concerned about these issues when compared to other racial groups.ConclusionsThis work describes findings from a mixed methods community-engaged research study about telehealth, including perceived benefits and concerns. Although participants enjoyed the benefits of telehealth (eg, not having to travel and easier scheduling), they also had concerns (eg, not being able to express themselves well and not having a physical exam) about telehealth. These sentiments were especially notable among the Indigenous population. Our work highlights the importance of fully understanding the impact of these novel health delivery modalities on the patient experience and actual or perceived quality of care received.

Project description:BackgroundFrail older patients are at risk of experiencing a decline in physical and cognitive function unrelated to the reason for admission. The Elder-Friendly Care (EFC) program was designed to improve the care, experiences, and outcomes of frail older adults. The project supported 8 Early Adoption Sites (EAS) in a large Canadian healthcare organization by providing multiple strategies, educational opportunities, and resources. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of EFC educational materials and resources, staff practice changes and perceptions in pilot sites, and readiness for scale and spread.MethodsThe study was conducted from May 2017 to June 2018 using a mixed-methods approach incorporating the Kirkpatrick Model of Training/Evaluation. A total of 76 Direct Care Staff participated in the staff survey, which assessed their awareness of, satisfaction with, and utilization of EFC principles, resources, and practices. Additionally, 12 interviews were conducted with staff who were directly involved in site implementation of EFC.ResultsMost survey participants were aware (86%, n = 63) of the EFC program, and 85% (n = 41) indicated they or their site/unit had implemented EFC. Out of these 41 participants, the most common practice changes identified were: incorporating alternatives to restraint (81%, n = 33), decreased use of pharmacological restraint (78%, n = 32), and patient and family care planning (76%, n = 31). Participants that attended all 3 EFC Learning Workshops (LWs) were significantly more likely to recommend the EFC Toolkit to others (87% versus 40%; χ2 = 8.82, p < 0.01) compared to participants attending less than 3 EFC LWs. Interview participants indicated that the program was well structured and flexible as sites/units could adopt changes that suited their individual sites, needs, contexts, and challenges.ConclusionsThe educational materials and resources used for the EFC project are useful and appreciated by the Direct Care Staff. Further, participants perceive the EFC intervention as effective in creating positive practice change and useful in reducing hospital-related complications for older patients. Future implementation will investigate the impact of EFC on system-level outcomes in acute care.

Project description:BackgroundTrial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units.MethodsThree stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel.ResultsA total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation.ConclusionsSeveral key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Rates of chronic conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity are increasing in Canada and internationally. There are effective lifestyle interventions that are known to improve chronic conditions. However, there is often a gap in 'how to' make lifestyle changes. Mental health and other determinants of health play a role in the development and progression of chronic conditions. Changing habits takes time and requires the use of multiple techniques, including mental health and behavioural change strategies, based on a person's needs. A new, multidisciplinary, person-centred and evidence-based and practice-based programme has been created to address these needs. This proposal aims to evaluate the feasibility and implementation of this programme and to determine changes in participant-directed and clinical outcomes through a pilot study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A pragmatic mixed methods design will be used to study multiple dimensions of the year-long healthy lifestyles programme. The pilot study includes a randomised controlled trial, with 30 participants randomised to either the programme or to a comparator arm, and qualitative components to determine the feasibility of the programme, including recruitment and retention, data missing rates and resources needed to run this programme. Changes in participant-directed and clinical outcomes will be measured. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for within group comparisons and generalised estimating equations for between group analyses will be used. Qualitative interviews of programme staff and healthcare providers and family focus groups will be used to further enhance the findings and improve the programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB) has been obtained. Informed consent will be obtained prior to enrolling any participant into the study. Participant IDs will be used during data collection and entry. Peer-reviewed publications and presentations will target researchers, health professionals and stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03258138.HiREB project number: 3793.

Project description:BackgroundHigh quality goal setting in stroke rehabilitation is vital, but challenging to deliver. The G-AP framework (including staff training and a stroke survivor held G-AP record) guides patient centred goal setting with stroke survivors in community rehabilitation teams. We found G-AP was acceptable, feasible to deliver and clinically useful in one team. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed methods investigation of G-AP implementation in diverse community teams prior to a large-scale evaluation.MethodsWe approached Scottish community rehabilitation teams to take part. Following training, G-AP was delivered to stroke survivors within participating teams for 6 months. We investigated staff experiences of G-AP training and its implementation using focus groups and a training questionnaire. We investigated fidelity of G-AP delivery through case note review. Focus group data were analysed using a Framework approach; identified themes were mapped into Normalisation Process Theory constructs. Questionnaire and case note data were analysed descriptively.ResultsWe recruited three teams comprising 55 rehabilitation staff. Almost all staff (93%, 51/55) participated in G-AP training; of those, 80% (n = 41/51) completed the training questionnaire. Training was rated as 'good' or 'very good' by almost all staff (92%, n = 37/41). G-AP was broadly implemented as intended in two teams. Implementation facilitators included - G-AP 'made sense'; repetitive use of G-AP in practice; flexible G-AP delivery and positive staff appraisals of G-AP impact. G-AP failed to gain traction in the third team. Implementation barriers included - delays between G-AP training and implementation; limited leadership engagement; a poor 'fit' between G-AP and the team organisational structure and simultaneous delivery of other goal setting methods. Staff recommended (i) development of training to include implementation planning; (ii) ongoing local implementation review and tailoring, and (iii) development of electronic and aphasia friendly G-AP records.ConclusionsThe interaction between G-AP and the practice setting is critical to implementation success or failure. Whilst facilitators support implementation success, barriers can collectively act as implementation "deal breakers". Local G-AP implementation efforts should be planned, monitored and tailored. These insights can inform implementation of other complex interventions in community rehabilitation settings.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the national multisite implementation of dialectical behaviour therapy in a community setting: a mixed methods approach.

Publications

Evaluating the national multisite implementation of dialectical behaviour therapy in a community setting: a mixed methods approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets