scholarly journals Health co-inquiry in migraine: Online participation and stakeholder experiences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0260376
Author(s):  
Camden L. Baucke ◽  
Lauren S. Seifert ◽  
Kara Kaelber
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Computer Applications ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Online Forums ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Bulletin Boards ◽  
Stakeholder Cooperation ◽  
Person Centered Approach

A migraine is more than head pain, and chronic migraine can dramatically impact a person and those around her/him/them. To better understand those effects it is important to study the experiences of persons with migraine and their caregivers, family, friends, and health and mental health providers. When they collaborate, stakeholders may improve outcomes for persons with chronic migraine. One type of stakeholder cooperation is Health Co-Inquiry, involving a person-centered approach, activation of persons toward collaboration and improved health, evidence-based practice, and integrated care. The current study investigated Health Co-Inquiry at online forums, blogs, and bulletin boards where people came together to discuss migraine. A “Bifurcated Method” was used to conduct inductive, thematic analyses, quantitize themes, and cross-check themes using a robot program, which crawled the Internet to gather data about stakeholder sites and posts related to migraine. Key themes in the online narratives of migraine stakeholders included seeking and providing advice, help, and information. In addition, giving personal stories and testimonials, selling computer applications and products, and providing misinformation were frequent. Differences in the types of posts by various stakeholder groups were identified and may inform researchers about their varied perspectives and goals. Remarkably, migraine is still migraine–before a pandemic and during it. As such, migraineur concerns remained stable across thematic analyses of blog and forum posts before and during the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals A pilot study comparing tools for tracking implementation strategies and treatment adaptations

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952110160
Author(s):  
Callie Walsh-Bailey ◽  
Lorella G Palazzo ◽  
Salene MW Jones ◽  
Kayne D Mettert ◽  
Byron J Powell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Forced Response ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Stakeholder Groups

Background: Tailoring implementation strategies and adapting treatments to better fit the local context may improve their effectiveness. However, there is a dearth of valid, reliable, pragmatic measures that allow for the prospective tracking of strategies and adaptations according to reporting recommendations. This study describes the development and pilot testing of three tools to be designed to serve this purpose. Methods: Measure development was informed by two systematic reviews of the literature (implementation strategies and treatment adaptation). The three resulting tools vary with respect to the degree of structure (brainstorming log = low, activity log = moderate, detailed tracking log = high). To prospectively track treatment adaptations and implementation strategies, three stakeholder groups (treatment developer, implementation practitioners, and mental health providers) were randomly assigned one tool per week through an anonymous web-based survey for 12 weeks and incentivized to participate. Three established implementation outcome measures, the Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure, were used to assess the tools. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather more nuanced information from stakeholders regarding their perceptions of the tools and the tracking process. Results: The three tracking tools demonstrated moderate to good acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility; the activity log was deemed the most feasible of the three tools. Implementation practitioners rated the tools the highest of the three stakeholder groups. The tools took an average of 15 min or less to complete. Conclusion: This study sought to fill methodological gaps that prevent stakeholders and researchers from discerning which strategies are most important to deploy for promoting implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices. These tools would allow researchers and practitioners to track whether activities were treatment adaptations or implementation strategies and what barrier(s) each targets. These tools could inform prospective tailoring of implementation strategies and treatment adaptations, which would promote scale out and spread. Plain Language Summary Strategies to support the implementation of evidence-based practices may be more successful if they are carefully customized based on local factors. Evidence-based practices themselves may be thoughtfully changed to better meet the needs of the settings and recipients. This study reports on a pilot study that aimed to create various types of tools to help individuals involved in implementation efforts track the actions they take to modify and implement interventions. These tools allow individuals to track the types of activities they are involved in, when the activities occurred, who was involved in the implementation efforts, and the reasons or rationale for the actions. The three tools in this study used a combination of open-ended and forced-response questions to test how the type of data recorded changed. Participants generally found the tools quick and easy to use and helpful in planning the delivery of an evidence-based practice. Most participants wanted more training in implementation science terminology and how to complete the tracking tools. Participating mental health providers would have liked more opportunities to review the data collected from the tools with their supervisors to use the data to improve the delivery of the evidence-based practice. These tools can help researchers, providers, and staff involved in implementation efforts to better understand what actions are needed to improve implementation success. Future research should address gaps identified in this study, such as the need to involve more participants in the tool development process.

The Limitations and Strengths of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale as a Measure of Correctional Employees’ Attitudes: A Psychometric Evaluation

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 3947-3964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Breanna Boppre ◽  
Jody Sundt ◽  
Emily J. Salisbury
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Psychometric Evaluation ◽  
Attitude Scale ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Correctional Staff ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Evidence Based Practices

Evidence-based practices (EBPs) hold tremendous potential for improving the outcomes of corrections interventions. The implementation of EBPs requires support from staff at all levels of an organization; however, the study of correctional staff attitudes toward organizational change and EBPs is in its infancy. The current study examines the psychometric properties of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS), an instrument originally designed for mental health professionals, to measure correctional employees’ readiness to implement EBPs. The results indicate mixed conclusions regarding the use of the EBPAS with correctional staff. We found that the total scale and subscales are reliable and exhibit high internal consistency. However, the results of an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis failed to replicate the factor structure from previous research with mental health providers. The findings indicate potential drawbacks regarding the construct validity of the EBPAS for use with correctional personnel.

Mental Health Providers’ Decision-Making Around the Implementation of Evidence-Based Treatment for PTSD

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Princess E. Osei-Bonsu ◽  
Rendelle E. Bolton ◽  
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman ◽  
Susan V. Eisen ◽  
Lawrence Herz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Evidence Based Treatment

Future Directions and Conclusion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip M. Kleespies
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Interpersonal Violence ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Behavioral Emergencies ◽  
And Training

In this concluding chapter, further emphasis is given to the critical need for education and training for psychologists and other mental health providers in the evaluation and management of behavioral emergencies. It is noted that the need for such training has been cited by several national and international organizations concerned with health care. Next, there is a discussion of some aspects of behavioral emergencies that are in need of future research and some promising directions for the prevention of suicide and interpersonal violence (e.g., means restriction and means restriction counseling). Finally, the importance of remaining evidence-based in clinical work is discussed, as well as what “evidence-based” might mean in a dynamic area of practice such as behavioral emergencies.

scholarly journals A Pilot Study Comparing Tools for Tracking Implementation Strategies and Treatment Adaptations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Callie Walsh-Bailey ◽  
Lorella G. Palazzo ◽  
Salene M. W. Jones ◽  
Kayne D. Mettert ◽  
Byron J. Powell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Tracking Process ◽  
Pragmatic Measures

Abstract Background Tailoring implementation strategies and adapting treatments to better fit the local context may improve their effectiveness. However, there is a dearth of valid, reliable, pragmatic measures that allow for the prospective tracking of strategies and adaptations according to reporting recommendations. This study describes the development and pilot testing of three tools to designed to serve this purpose. Methods Measure development was informed by two systematic reviews of the literature (implementation strategies, treatment adaptation). The three resulting tools vary with respect to the degree of structure (Brainstorming Log = low, Activity Log = moderate, Detailed Tracking Log = high). To prospectively track treatment adaptations and implementation strategies, three stakeholder groups (treatment developer, implementation practitioners, mental health providers) were randomly assigned one tool per week via an anonymous web-based survey for nine weeks and incentivized to participate. Three established implementation outcome measures, the Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure were used to assess the tools. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather more nuanced information from stakeholders regarding their perceptions of the tools and the tracking process. Results The three tracking tools demonstrated moderate to good acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility; the Activity Log was deemed the most feasible of the three tools. Implementation practitioners rated the tools the highest of the three stakeholder groups. The tools took an average of 15 minutes or less to complete. Conclusion This study sought to fill methodological gaps that prevent stakeholders and researchers from discerning which strategies are most important to deploy for promoting implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices. These tools would allow researchers and practitioners to track whether activities were treatment adaptations or implementation strategies and what barrier(s) each target. These tools could inform prospective tailoring of implementation strategies and treatment adaptations, which would promote scale out and spread.

scholarly journals A Pilot Study Comparing Tools for Tracking Implementation Strategies and Treatment Adaptations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Callie Walsh-Bailey ◽  
Lorella G. Palazzo ◽  
Salene M. W. Jones ◽  
Kayne D. Mettert ◽  
Byron J. Powell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Pragmatic Measures ◽  
Low Activity

Abstract Background Tailoring implementation strategies and adapting treatments to better fit the local context may improve their effectiveness. However, there is a dearth of valid, reliable, pragmatic measures that allow for the prospective tracking of strategies and adaptations according to reporting recommendations. This study describes the development and pilot testing of three tools to designed to serve this purpose.Methods Measure development was informed by two systematic reviews of the literature (implementation strategies, treatment adaptation). The three resulting tools vary with respect to the degree of structure (Brainstorming Log = low, Activity Log = moderate, Detailed Tracking Log = high). To prospectively track treatment adaptations and implementation strategies, three stakeholder groups (treatment developer, implementation practitioners, mental health providers) were randomly assigned one tool per week via an anonymous web-based survey for nine weeks and incentivized to participate. Three established implementation outcome measures, the Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure were used to assess the tools. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather more nuanced information from stakeholders regarding their perceptions of the tools and the tracking process.Results The three tracking tools demonstrated moderate to good acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility; the Activity Log was deemed the most feasible of the three tools. Implementation practitioners rated the tools the highest of the three stakeholder groups. The tools took an average of 15 minutes or less to complete.Conclusion This study sought to fill methodological gaps that prevent stakeholders and researchers from discerning which strategies are most important to deploy for promoting implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices. These tools would allow researchers and practitioners to track whether activities were treatment adaptations or implementation strategies and what barrier(s) each targets. These tools could inform prospective tailoring of implementation strategies and treatment adaptations, which would promote scale out and spread.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document