Technology-Enabled Person-Centered Mental Health Services Reform: Strategy for Implementation Science

Background Health information technologies are being rapidly developed to improve the delivery of mental health care; however, a range of facilitators, barriers, and contextual conditions can impact the adoption and sustainment of these solutions. An implementation science protocol supports researchers to achieve primary effectiveness goals in relation to mental health services reform and aids in the optimization of implementation processes to promote quality health care, prolonging sustainability. Objective The aim of this paper is to describe our implementation science protocol, which serves as a foundation by which to systematically guide the implementation of technology-enabled solutions in traditional face-to-face and Web-based mental health services, allowing for revisions over time on the basis of retrospective review and constructive feedback from the services in which the technology-enabled solutions are implemented. Methods Our implementation science protocol comprises four phases. The primary objective of the scoping and feasibility phase (Phase 1) is to determine the alignment between the service partner and the quality improvement goals supported by the technology-enabled solution. This is followed by Phase 2, the local co-design and preimplementation phase, which aims to utilize co-design methodologies, including service pathway modelling, participatory design, and user (acceptance) testing, to determine how the solutions could be used to enhance the service. In Phase 3, implementation, the accepted solution is embedded in the mental health service to achieve better outcomes for consumers and their families as well as health professionals and service managers. Using iterative evaluative processes throughout Phase 3, the solution is continuously developed, designed, and refined during implementation to adapt to the changing needs of the stakeholders, including consumers with lived experience and their families as well as the service. Thus, the primary outcome of Phase 3 is the optimized technology-enabled solution that can be maintained in a service during the sustainment and scalability phase (Phase 4) for the purposes of mental health services reform. Results Funding for the protocol was provided by the Australian Government Department of Health in June of 2017 for a period of 3 years. At the time of this publication, the protocol had been initiated in 11 services, serving three populations, all of which are currently operating in Phase 3. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2020. Conclusions With the aim of improving mental health service quality, our implementation science protocol aids in the identification of factors that predict the likelihood of implementation success, as well as the development of strategies to proactively mitigate potential barriers to achieve better implementation outcomes. Putting in place a theoretically sound implementation science protocol is essential to facilitate the uptake of novel technology-enabled solutions and evidence-based practices into routine clinical practice for the purposes of improved outcomes.

[1]  L. Maher,et al.  Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare , 2018, Implementation Science.

[2]  Russell E Glasgow,et al.  A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. , 2008, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[3]  Antoinette de Bont,et al.  Telemedicine in interdisciplinary work practices: On an IT system that met the criteria for success set out by its sponsors, yet failed to become part of every-day clinical routines , 2008, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[4]  J. Lowery,et al.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science , 2009, Implementation science : IS.

[5]  Kim M. Nazi The Personal Health Record Paradox: Health Care Professionals’ Perspectives and the Information Ecology of Personal Health Record Systems in Organizational and Clinical Settings , 2013, Journal of medical Internet research.

[6]  Abraham Wandersman,et al.  Practical Implementation Science: Developing and Piloting the Quality Implementation Tool , 2012, American journal of community psychology.

[7]  Melissa L Dougherty,et al.  Patient journeys: the process of clinical redesign , 2008, The Medical journal of Australia.

[8]  M. Johansen,et al.  Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[9]  K. Mulligan,et al.  Application and Effectiveness of Telehealth to Support Severe Mental Illness Management: Systematic Review , 2018, JMIR mental health.

[10]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies , 2017, Journal of medical Internet research.

[12]  I. Hickie,et al.  Validation of the InnoWell Platform: Protocol for a Clinical Trial , 2019, JMIR research protocols.

[13]  Aaron R Lyon,et al.  Measuring the Implementation of Behavioral Intervention Technologies: Recharacterization of Established Outcomes , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[14]  S. Ceptureanu,et al.  Community Based Programs Sustainability. A Multidimensional Analysis of Sustainability Factors , 2018 .

[15]  P. Montgomery,et al.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: a systematic review , 2018, Implementation Science.

[16]  Abraham Wandersman,et al.  The Quality Implementation Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process , 2012, American journal of community psychology.

[17]  P. Nilsen Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks , 2015, Implementation Science.

[18]  P. Butow,et al.  Hospital-based interventions: a systematic review of staff-reported barriers and facilitators to implementation processes , 2018, Implementation Science.

[19]  N. Gordon,et al.  Older adults’ readiness to engage with eHealth patient education and self-care resources: a cross-sectional survey , 2016, BMC Health Services Research.

[20]  R. Glasgow,et al.  Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[21]  Liezl Van Dyk A Review of Telehealth Service Implementation Frameworks , 2014 .

[22]  Heleen Riper,et al.  University of Southern Denmark Improving implementation of emental health for mood disorders in routine practice Systematic review of barriers and facilitating factors , 2018 .

[23]  Aaron R Lyon,et al.  Accelerating Digital Mental Health Research From Early Design and Creation to Successful Implementation and Sustainment , 2017, Journal of medical Internet research.

[24]  Scott D. Miller,et al.  Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions , 2015, Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research.

[25]  M. Eccles,et al.  Welcome to Implementation Science , 2006, Implementation Science.

[26]  Elizabeth Murray,et al.  Exploring the challenges of implementing e-health: a protocol for an update of a systematic review of reviews , 2015, BMJ Open.

[27]  J. Durlak,et al.  Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation , 2008, American journal of community psychology.

[28]  I. Hickie,et al.  Developing a Mental Health eClinic to Improve Access to and Quality of Mental Health Care for Young People: Using Participatory Design as Research Methodologies , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[29]  Milou A. Feijt,et al.  Perceived Drivers and Barriers to the Adoption of eMental Health by Psychologists: The Construction of the Levels of Adoption of eMental Health Model , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[30]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth – a hermeneutic systematic review , 2017, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders.