Effectiveness of Self-guided Tailored Implementation Strategies in Integrating and Embedding Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Routine Mental Health Care: Results of a Multicenter Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.
common mental health disorders
iCBT
implementation strategies
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy
mobile phone
tailored implementation
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 02 2023
03 02 2023
Historique:
received:
29
07
2022
accepted:
30
11
2022
revised:
18
11
2022
entrez:
3
2
2023
pubmed:
4
2
2023
medline:
8
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) services for common mental health disorders have been found to be effective. There is a need for strategies that improve implementation in routine practice. One-size-fits-all strategies are likely to be ineffective. Tailored implementation is considered as a promising approach. The self-guided integrated theory-based Framework for intervention tailoring strategies toolkit (ItFits-toolkit) supports local implementers in developing tailored implementation strategies. Tailoring involves identifying local barriers; matching selected barriers to implementation strategies; developing an actionable work plan; and applying, monitoring, and adapting where necessary. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the ItFits-toolkit with implementation-as-usual (IAU) in implementing iCBT services in 12 routine mental health care organizations in 9 countries in Europe and Australia. A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design with repeated measures was applied. The trial period lasted 30 months. The primary outcome was the normalization of iCBT delivery by service providers (therapists, referrers, IT developers, and administrators), which was measured with the Normalization Measure Development as a proxy for implementation success. A 3-level linear mixed-effects modeling was applied to estimate the effects. iCBT service uptake (referral and treatment completion rates) and implementation effort (hours) were used as secondary outcomes. The perceived satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), usability (System Usability Scale), and impact of the ItFits-toolkit by implementers were used to assess the acceptability of the ItFits-toolkit. In total, 456 mental health service providers were included in this study. Compared with IAU, the ItFits-toolkit had a small positive statistically significant effect on normalization levels in service providers (mean 0.09, SD 0.04; P=.02; Cohen d=0.12). The uptake of iCBT by patients was similar to that of IAU. Implementers did not spend more time on implementation work when using the ItFits-toolkit and generally regarded the ItFits-toolkit as usable and were satisfied with it. The ItFits-toolkit performed better than the usual implementation activities in implementing iCBT services in routine practice. There is practical utility in the ItFits-toolkit for supporting implementers in developing and applying effective tailored implementation strategies. However, the effect on normalization levels among mental health service providers was small. These findings warrant modesty regarding the effectiveness of self-guided tailored implementation of iCBT services in routine practice. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03652883. RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04686-4.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) services for common mental health disorders have been found to be effective. There is a need for strategies that improve implementation in routine practice. One-size-fits-all strategies are likely to be ineffective. Tailored implementation is considered as a promising approach. The self-guided integrated theory-based Framework for intervention tailoring strategies toolkit (ItFits-toolkit) supports local implementers in developing tailored implementation strategies. Tailoring involves identifying local barriers; matching selected barriers to implementation strategies; developing an actionable work plan; and applying, monitoring, and adapting where necessary.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the ItFits-toolkit with implementation-as-usual (IAU) in implementing iCBT services in 12 routine mental health care organizations in 9 countries in Europe and Australia.
METHODS
A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design with repeated measures was applied. The trial period lasted 30 months. The primary outcome was the normalization of iCBT delivery by service providers (therapists, referrers, IT developers, and administrators), which was measured with the Normalization Measure Development as a proxy for implementation success. A 3-level linear mixed-effects modeling was applied to estimate the effects. iCBT service uptake (referral and treatment completion rates) and implementation effort (hours) were used as secondary outcomes. The perceived satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), usability (System Usability Scale), and impact of the ItFits-toolkit by implementers were used to assess the acceptability of the ItFits-toolkit.
RESULTS
In total, 456 mental health service providers were included in this study. Compared with IAU, the ItFits-toolkit had a small positive statistically significant effect on normalization levels in service providers (mean 0.09, SD 0.04; P=.02; Cohen d=0.12). The uptake of iCBT by patients was similar to that of IAU. Implementers did not spend more time on implementation work when using the ItFits-toolkit and generally regarded the ItFits-toolkit as usable and were satisfied with it.
CONCLUSIONS
The ItFits-toolkit performed better than the usual implementation activities in implementing iCBT services in routine practice. There is practical utility in the ItFits-toolkit for supporting implementers in developing and applying effective tailored implementation strategies. However, the effect on normalization levels among mental health service providers was small. These findings warrant modesty regarding the effectiveness of self-guided tailored implementation of iCBT services in routine practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03652883.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04686-4.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36735287
pii: v25i1e41532
doi: 10.2196/41532
pmc: PMC9938445
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03652883']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e41532Informations de copyright
©Christiaan Vis, Josien Schuurmans, Bruno Aouizerate, Mette Atipei Craggs, Philip Batterham, Leah Bührmann, Alison Calear, Arlinda Cerga Pashoja, Helen Christensen, Els Dozeman, Claus Duedal Pedersen, David Daniel Ebert, Anne Etzelmueller, Naim Fanaj, Tracy L Finch, Denise Hanssen, Ulrich Hegerl, Adriaan Hoogendoorn, Kim Mathiasen, Carl May, Andia Meksi, Sevim Mustafa, Bridianne O'Dea, Caroline Oehler, Jordi Piera-Jiménez, Sebastian Potthoff, Gentiana Qirjako, Tim Rapley, Judith Rosmalen, Ylenia Sacco, Ludovic Samalin, Mette Maria Skjoth, Kristine Tarp, Ingrid Titzler, Erik Van der Eycken, Claire Rosalie van Genugten, Alexis Whitton, Enrico Zanalda, Jan H Smit, Heleen Riper. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 03.02.2023.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 29;(4):CD005470
pubmed: 25923419
CMAJ. 2010 Feb 9;182(2):E85-8
pubmed: 20026633
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Jul 04;14:94
pubmed: 23826887
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jun 22;14(3):e91
pubmed: 22743581
Internet Interv. 2018 Feb 06;11:60-70
pubmed: 30135761
Implement Sci. 2017 Jan 10;12(1):5
pubmed: 28069029
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Feb;78:26-33
pubmed: 23246396
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 May 18;5(2):e42
pubmed: 29776898
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Sep 19;7:148
pubmed: 17880693
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Dec 19;12(5):e74
pubmed: 21169177
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;49(9):776-84
pubmed: 25907269
Res Soc Work Pract. 2014 Mar 1;24(2):192-212
pubmed: 24791131
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Sep 10;16(9):e208
pubmed: 25208886
Clin Trials. 2012 Aug;9(4):396-407
pubmed: 22752633
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Apr 24;11(2):e13
pubmed: 19403466
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Aug 31;18(8):e234
pubmed: 27582341
Behav Res Ther. 2015 Sep;72:63-71
pubmed: 26188373
JMIR Ment Health. 2020 Aug 18;7(8):e18642
pubmed: 32673213
Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(4):222-34
pubmed: 19440896
Contemp Clin Trials. 2007 Feb;28(2):182-91
pubmed: 16829207
Implement Sci. 2011 Sep 07;6:103
pubmed: 21899753
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Mar 16;5(1):e20
pubmed: 29549072
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Implement Sci. 2015 Mar 12;10:33
pubmed: 25884819
Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:119-38
pubmed: 23514317
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 25;19(1):189
pubmed: 30909897
Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2009 Jan-Mar;18(1):23-33
pubmed: 19378696
Trials. 2020 Oct 28;21(1):893
pubmed: 33115545
Internet Interv. 2018 Jul 26;13:108-115
pubmed: 30206525
JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Apr 1;78(4):361-371
pubmed: 33471111
J Clin Med. 2019 Dec 30;9(1):
pubmed: 31905834
JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 1;76(7):700-707
pubmed: 30994877
Eval Program Plann. 1982;5(3):233-7
pubmed: 10259963
Implement Sci. 2021 Dec 20;16(Suppl 2):104
pubmed: 34930330
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 29;21(10):e14261
pubmed: 31663855
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 31;22(8):e18100
pubmed: 32865497
Med Care Res Rev. 2012 Apr;69(2):123-57
pubmed: 22203646
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 08;18(9):e236
pubmed: 27608548
Internet Interv. 2018 Jan 16;12:150-164
pubmed: 30135779
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Feb 20;21(2):e12376
pubmed: 30785402
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 16;9(7):e100674
pubmed: 25029507
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 15;18(1):135
pubmed: 30442094
Implement Sci. 2015 Feb 12;10:21
pubmed: 25889199
Implement Sci. 2017 Feb 15;12(1):21
pubmed: 28202031
Eval Program Plann. 1979;2(3):197-207
pubmed: 10245370
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 15;18(1):133
pubmed: 30442093
Implement Sci. 2018 Dec 4;13(1):146
pubmed: 30509289
Implement Sci. 2013 Feb 13;8:18
pubmed: 23406398
Br J Clin Psychol. 2010 Nov;49(Pt 4):455-71
pubmed: 19799804
J Affect Disord. 2014 Feb;155:49-58
pubmed: 24238951
J Safety Res. 2011 Dec;42(6):419-22
pubmed: 22152258