Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31538938›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2019

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

Haley M LaMonica, Tracey A Davenport, Katharine Braunstein, Antonia Ottavio, Sarah Piper, Craig Martin, Ian B Hickie, Shane Cross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Haley M LaMonicaBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6563-5467
Tracey A DavenportBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4218-9238
Katharine BraunsteinInnoWell Pty Ltd, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1032-9080
Antonia OttavioInnoWell Pty Ltd, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8307-6200
Sarah PiperBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3344-0382
Craig MartinInnoWell Pty Ltd, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3151-2872
Ian B HickieBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8832-9895
Shane CrossBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5413-8342

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth 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.

objectiveThe 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.

methodsOur 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.

resultsFunding 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.

conclusionsWith 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.

Indexed as

community-based participatory researchhealth care reformimplementation sciencemental healthtechnology

Identifiers

PMID31538938
PMCPMC6786853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.