Eight studies applied qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, focus group discussions, document review), 11 studies used quantitative methods (e.g., survey) and eight studies employed a mixed-methods approach. Participants varied from study to study and included service users, service providers, healthcare managers, media representatives and policymakers at macro level. Quantitative tools included self-reported surveys (e.g., to measure knowledge by health workers about the content of mental health policy). One study focused on a new policy framework that would expand the understanding of mental ill health within the country’s welfare system and investigated how the process was dealt with by implementing agencies (Fjellfeldt, 2020). Study participants varied across studies and included, depending on the context, users and families, service providers, traditional healers, agencies and organisations involved in the implementation, government and international policymakers.

Third, implementation science involves conducting pragmatic trials to test these implementation approaches in real world settings to improve implementation, with the ultimate goal of improving health and quality of life. Second, implementation science focuses on developing implementation approaches that target the factors that may accelerate or hinder implementation. First, implementation science emphasizes the importance of understanding the context in which individuals will implement EBPs and how these contextual factors contribute to implementation success or failure. By observing a “day in the life” of the mental health CSO, the case consultant learned about the officers’ roles and relationships with people on their caseload while also building rapport during the ride along. Additionally, participants described training needs related to mental health topics (e.g., mental health diagnosis and symptoms), availability of resources in the local services system, and specific aspects of the pilot project (e.g., how clinical case consultation should be used and what the expectations are for CSOs).

Search strategy and selection criteria

• The GACD specifically funds implementation science research in LMICs and is made up a consortium of funding agencies from a diverse array of countries including some LMICs.
• First, we provide an overview of important contextual issues to be considered when addressing research questions pertinent to the implementation of mental health interventions in schools.
• Mental, neurological and substance-use (MNS) disorders are the leading causes of disability globally, yet most people in need of treatment for MNS disorders never receive care (Thornicroft et al., 2017; Pathare et al., 2018; Vos et al., 2020).

We contacted all remaining principal investigators and invited them to participate in a structured online survey related to the measurement of implementation processes and outcomes in their study. No a priori target for degree of consensus was set for this study, and a full consensus-based approach was not pursued. Finally, in the third section panel members proposed a minimal set of validation strategies that researchers could use under most circumstances when applying an implementation measure in a diverse new setting. These implementation measures – and their corresponding theories, models and frameworks – may need to be appropriately translated, adapted and validated for use in diverse global contexts (Means et al., 2020). For example, many implementation studies begin with an assessment of the multi-level contextual determinants of implementation effectiveness (Damschroder et al., 2009).

The evidence-based practice movement has become an important feature of health care systems and health care policy. This article presents a review of recent research on the effectiveness of major substance abuse treatment interventions used at different possible linkage points during criminal justice case processing, including https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/26809/chapter/5 diversion, jail, prison, and community supervision. The instrument was tested in a Norwegian study on implementation of evidence based practices for psychosis.

Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework

Providers may feel that apps can improve patient self-management and facilitate communication; however, they may also think that apps are impersonal, contain unreliable information, or do not have proper privacy regulations (Jacob et al. 2020; Lattie et al. 2020; Lemon et al. 2020). An additional predictor of successful app uptake is the individual’s degree of motivation; someone with a strong drive to improve their functioning may be more likely to stick with a treatment protocol. However, additional work has reported greater interest among those with more education (Beard et al. 2019), as well as heightened skepticism among rural adults, who were more likely to describe technology-based care as being impersonal (Connolly et al. 2018). Such studies highlight the difference between an individual’s hypothetical interest in an app and the likelihood that they will actually use it.

Overview of Evidence-Based Interventions in Public Health Psychiatry

Additionally, another study investigated patterns of implementation, that is, the frequency of types of suicide prevention programmes authorities chose to implement in different prefectures (Nakanishi et al., 2015). Degree of implementation was measured in a variety of ways in eight studies, seven of which focused on suicide prevention policies. Eight studies examined the existence of policy implementation (Doku et al., 2008; Mwanza et al., 2008; Draper et al., 2009; Omar et al., 2010; Dlouhy, 2014; Nakanishi et al., 2015; Nakanishi and Endo, 2017; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2017). Nine studies assessed policy implementation in HICs, four in UMICs, one in LMICs and three in LICs. Two studies assessed solely progress of policy implementation (Dlouhy, 2014; Sheehan et al., 2015).

We propose applying diffusion of innovation theory to further our understanding of why this is the case. Assessment of organizational “readiness” for change can set the stage for implementation by providing information regarding existing strengths and deficiencies, thereby increasing the chance of a successful improvement effort. In this introductory article, we provide an overview of treatment integrity research and describe three broad conceptual models that are relevant to the articles in the series. Further, although several programs show promise, many widely disseminated approaches lack empirical support, raising concerns about the potential for waste of limited resources.