Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39148956›Full record

ArticleImplementation research and practice

Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial.

Elizabeth J Austin, Jessica Chen, Lori Ferro, Andrew J Saxon, John C Fortney, Geoffrey M Curran, Anna D Ratzliff, Emily C Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Elizabeth J AustinDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4221-1362
Jessica ChenDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lori FerroDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Andrew J SaxonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
John C FortneyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Geoffrey M CurranDepartments of Pharmacy Practice and Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Anna D RatzliffDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Emily C WilliamsDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

Expanding Translational Research in ArkansasUL1TR003107 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI JAMES, LAURA P · 2019 to 2023
$21.6M
Collaborating to Heal Addiction and Mental Health in Primary care (CHAMP)UF1MH121942 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FORTNEY, JOHN C., RATZLIFF, ANNA · 2019 to 2019
$14.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003107NIMH NIH HHS UF1 MH121942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. Method: To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews ( Results: Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites' most precious resource-staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. Conclusions: Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.

Indexed as

clinical trialcommunity engagementresearch implementation

Identifiers

PMID39148956
PMCPMC11325307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.