Tailoring dissemination strategies to increase evidence-informed policymaking for opioid use disorder treatment: study protocol.
Dissemination strategies
EPIS framework
Information dissemination
Managed care populations
Medicaid
Opioid-related disorders
Policy
Politics
Prior authorization
Substance use disorder treatment
Journal
Implementation science communications
ISSN: 2662-2211
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101764360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2023
16 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
27
12
2022
accepted:
30
01
2023
entrez:
17
2
2023
pubmed:
18
2
2023
medline:
18
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Policy is a powerful tool for systematically altering healthcare access and quality, but the research to policy gap impedes translating evidence-based practices into public policy and limits widespread improvements in service and population health outcomes. The US opioid epidemic disproportionately impacts Medicaid members who rely on publicly funded benefits to access evidence-based treatment including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). A myriad of misaligned policies and evidence-use behaviors by policymakers across federal agencies, state Medicaid agencies, and managed care organizations limit coverage of and access to MOUD for Medicaid members. Dissemination strategies that improve policymakers' use of current evidence are critical to improving MOUD benefits and reducing health disparities. However, no research describes key determinants of Medicaid policymakers' evidence use behaviors or preferences, and few studies have examined data-driven approaches to developing dissemination strategies to enhance evidence-informed policymaking. This study aims to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors, then develop and test data-driven tailored dissemination strategies that promote MOUD coverage in benefit arrays. Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we will conduct a national survey of state Medicaid agency and managed care organization policymakers to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence how they seek, receive, and use research in their decision-making processes. We will use latent class methods to empirically identify subgroups of agencies with distinct evidence use behaviors. A 10-step dissemination strategy development and specification process will be used to tailor strategies to significant predictors identified for each latent class. Tailored dissemination strategies will be deployed to each class of policymakers and assessed for their acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for delivering evidence about MOUD benefit design. This study will illuminate key determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors when designing benefits for MOUD. This study will produce a critically needed set of data-driven, tailored policy dissemination strategies. Study results will inform a subsequent multi-site trial measuring the effectiveness of tailored dissemination strategies on MOUD benefit design and implementation. Lessons from dissemination strategy development will inform future research about policymakers' evidence use preferences and offer a replicable process for tailoring dissemination strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Policy is a powerful tool for systematically altering healthcare access and quality, but the research to policy gap impedes translating evidence-based practices into public policy and limits widespread improvements in service and population health outcomes. The US opioid epidemic disproportionately impacts Medicaid members who rely on publicly funded benefits to access evidence-based treatment including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). A myriad of misaligned policies and evidence-use behaviors by policymakers across federal agencies, state Medicaid agencies, and managed care organizations limit coverage of and access to MOUD for Medicaid members. Dissemination strategies that improve policymakers' use of current evidence are critical to improving MOUD benefits and reducing health disparities. However, no research describes key determinants of Medicaid policymakers' evidence use behaviors or preferences, and few studies have examined data-driven approaches to developing dissemination strategies to enhance evidence-informed policymaking. This study aims to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors, then develop and test data-driven tailored dissemination strategies that promote MOUD coverage in benefit arrays.
METHODS
METHODS
Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we will conduct a national survey of state Medicaid agency and managed care organization policymakers to identify determinants and intermediaries that influence how they seek, receive, and use research in their decision-making processes. We will use latent class methods to empirically identify subgroups of agencies with distinct evidence use behaviors. A 10-step dissemination strategy development and specification process will be used to tailor strategies to significant predictors identified for each latent class. Tailored dissemination strategies will be deployed to each class of policymakers and assessed for their acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for delivering evidence about MOUD benefit design.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study will illuminate key determinants and intermediaries that influence policymakers' evidence use behaviors when designing benefits for MOUD. This study will produce a critically needed set of data-driven, tailored policy dissemination strategies. Study results will inform a subsequent multi-site trial measuring the effectiveness of tailored dissemination strategies on MOUD benefit design and implementation. Lessons from dissemination strategy development will inform future research about policymakers' evidence use preferences and offer a replicable process for tailoring dissemination strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36797794
doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00396-5
pii: 10.1186/s43058-023-00396-5
pmc: PMC9936679
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
16Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : L60 DA056946
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R25 MH080916
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R01 DA049891
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K01 DA056838-01
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R25 DA037190
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : K01 DA056838
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Martin K, Mullan Z, Horton R. Overcoming the research to policy gap. Lancet Glob Heal. 2019;7:S1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30082-8 .
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30082-8
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2
pubmed: 24383766
pmcid: 3909454
Ezenwaka U, Mbachu C, Etiaba E, Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O. Integrating evidence from research into decision-making for controlling endemic tropical diseases in South East Nigeria: perceptions of producers and users of evidence on barriers and solutions. Heal Res Policy Sys. 2020;18:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0518-y .
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0518-y
Damba FU, Mtshali NG, Chimbari MJ. Barriers and facilitators of translating health research findings into policy in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022;9:65. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01070-2 .
doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01070-2
Sohn J. Navigating the politics of evidence-informed policymaking: strategies of influential policy actors in Ontario. Palgrave Commun. 2018;4(49). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0098-4 .
Grogan CM, Bersamira CS, Singer PM, Smith BT, Pollack HA, Andrews CM, et al. Are policy strategies for addressing the opioid epidemic partisan? a view from the states. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020;45(2):277–309.
doi: 10.1215/03616878-8004886
pubmed: 31808787
Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e77404.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077404
pubmed: 24204823
pmcid: 3813708
Patashnik EM, Gerber AS, Dowling CM. Project MUSE. Unhealthy politics: the battle over evidence-based medicine. 1st ed: Princeton University Press; 2017.
doi: 10.2307/j.ctvc77b5g
Donohue J, Cunningham P, Walker L, Garfield R. Opioid use disorder among medicaid enrollees: snapshot of the epidemic and state responses. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2019; https://www.kff.org/report-section/opioid-use-disorder-among-medicaid-enrollees-snapshot-of-the-epidemic-and-state-responses-issue-brief/ . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Donohue J, Raslevich AC, Cole E. Medicaid’s role in improving substance use disorder treatment. Milibank Memorial Fund. 2020; https://www.milbank.org/publications/medicaids-role-in-improving-substance-use-disorder-treatment-in-the-us/ . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
McMullen E. Maryland Medicaid and opioid epidemic. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygeine. 2016. https://mmcp.health.maryland.gov/Documents/MMACpresentationDURandOverdoseJun16.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Understanding drug overdoses and deaths. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Ahmad FB, Cisewski JA, Rossen LM, Sutton P. Provisional drug overdose data. National Center for Health Statistics. 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Hadland SE, Wharam JF, Schuster MA, Zhang F, Samet JH, Larochelle MR. Trends in receipt of buprenorphine and naltrexone for opioid use disorder among adolescents and young adults, 2001-2014. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(8):747–55. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0745 .
doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0745
pubmed: 28628701
pmcid: 5649381
Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in Medicaid and CHIP. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. 2021. https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Implementation-of-the-Mental-Health-Parity-and-Addiction-Equity-Act-in-Medicaid-and-CHIP.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional committees: opioid use disorder - barriers to Medicaid beneficiaries’ access to treatment medications (GAO-20-233). 2020. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-233.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. Epidemic: responding to america’s prescription drug abuse crisis (NCJ#: 234164). Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2011. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/issues-content/prescription-drugs/rx_abuse_plan.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Biden-Harris Administration’s statement of drug policy priorities for year one. 2021. Office of National Drug Control Policy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/briefing-room/2021/04/01/biden-harris-administration-announces-first-year-drug-policy-priorities/ . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Volkow ND, Frieden TR, Hyde PS, Cha SS. Medication-assisted therapies — tackling the opioid-overdose epidemic. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2063–6. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1402780 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1402780
pubmed: 24758595
Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD002209. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002209.pub2 .
Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2014;6(2):CD002207. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002207.pub4 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002207.pub4
Larochelle MR, Bernson D, Land T, Stopka TJ, Wang N, Xuan Z, et al. Medication for opioid use disorder after nonfatal opioid overdose and association with mortality: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(3):137. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-3107 .
doi: 10.7326/M17-3107
pubmed: 29913516
pmcid: 6387681
Schiff DM, Nielsen T, Terplan M, Hood M, Bernson D, Diop H, et al. Fatal and nonfatal overdose among pregnant and postpartumwomen in Massachusetts. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(2):466–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002734 .
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002734
pubmed: 29995730
pmcid: 6060005
Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, Chaisson CE, McPheeters JT, Crown WH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622 .
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622
pubmed: 32022884
Hadland SE, Bagley SM, Rodean J, Silverstein M, Levy S, Larochelle MR, et al. Receipt of timely addiction treatment and association of early medication treatment with retention in care among youths with opioid use disorder. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(11):1029–37. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2143 .
doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2143
pubmed: 30208470
pmcid: 6218311
Timko C, Schultz NR, Cucciare MA, Vittorio L, Garrison-Diehn C. Retention in medication-assisted treatment for opiate dependence: a systematic review. J Addict Dis. 2016;35(1):22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550887.2016.1100960 .
doi: 10.1080/10550887.2016.1100960
pubmed: 26467975
Levy S, Ryan SA, Gonzalez PK, Patrick SW, Quigley J, Siqueira L, et al. Medication-assisted treatment of adolescents with opioid use disorders. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3):e20161893. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1893 .
doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1893
Volkow N. Five areas where “more research” isn’t needed to curb the overdose crisis. Nora’s Blog. 31 Aug 2022. https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2022/08/five-areas-where-more-research-isnt-needed-to-curb-overdose-crisis . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Substance use-disorder prevention that promotes opioid recovery and treatment for patients and communities act. Public Law 115-271. 24 Oct 2018. https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ271/PLAW-115publ271.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Report to Congress: Medication-Assisted Treatment in Medicaid. 2019. https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Report-to-Congress-Utilization-Management-of-Medication-Assisted-Treatment-in-Medicaid.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP: Medicaid and the opioid epidemic. 2017. https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Medicaid-and-the-Opioid-Epidemic.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Medicaid Coverage of medication-assisted treatment for alcohol and opioid use disorders and of medication for the reversal of opioid overdose (HHS Publication No. SMA-18-5093). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2018. Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Mark TL, Parish WJ, Zarkin GA. Association of formulary prior authorization policies with buprenorphine-naloxone prescriptions and hospital and emergency department use among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e203132. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3132 .
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3132
pubmed: 32310285
pmcid: 7171554
Total Medicaid spending. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2021. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedRows=%7B%22states%22:%7B%22virginia%22:%7B%7D,%22west-virginia%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Abraham A, Andrews CM, Harris SJ, Westlake MM, Grogan CM. Coverage and prior authorization policies for medications for opioid use disorder in Medicaid managed care. JAMA. 2022;3(11):E224001. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.4001 .
doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.4001
Crable EL, Jones D, Walley A, Hicks J, Drainoni M. Translating Medicaid policy into evidence-based substance use treatment: implementation lessons and strategies from three states’ 1115 waiver experiences. Implement Sci. 2022;17:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01182-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01182-4
pubmed: 34991638
pmcid: 8734202
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Horwitz SMC, McKay MM, Hoagwood KE. Determinants of using children’s mental health research in policymaking: variation by type of research use and phase of policy process. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01081-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01081-8
pubmed: 33468166
pmcid: 7815190
Purtle J, Marzalik JS, Halfond RW, Bufka LF, Teachman BA, Aarons GA. Toward the data-driven dissemination of findings from psychological science. Am Psychol. 2020;75(8):1052–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000721 .
doi: 10.1037/amp0000721
pubmed: 33252944
pmcid: 8182894
Hoagwood KE, Purtle J, Spandorfer J, Peth-Pierce R, Horwitz SMC. Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children’s mental health. Am Psychol. 2020;75(8):1130–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000706 .
doi: 10.1037/amp0000706
pubmed: 33252950
pmcid: 8034490
Brownson RC, Kumanyika SK, Kreuter MW, Haire-Joshu D. Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0
Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021704 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021704
pubmed: 21818262
pmcid: 3144216
Innvær S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):239–44. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581902320432778 .
doi: 10.1258/135581902320432778
pubmed: 12425783
Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2014;12(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-34 .
doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-34
Purtle J, Dodson EA, Nelson K, Meisel ZF, Brownson RC. Legislators’ sources of behavioral health research and preferences for dissemination: variations by political party. Psychiatr Serv. 2018;69(10):1105–8. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201800153 .
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201800153
pubmed: 29983112
pmcid: 6251498
Purtle J, Lê-Scherban F, Nelson KL, Shattuck PT, Proctor EK, Brownson RC. State Mental health agency officials’ preferences for and sources of behavioral health research. Psychol Serv. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000364 .
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Gebrekristos L, Lê-Scherban F, Gollust SE. Partisan differences in the effects of economic evidence and local data on legislator engagement with dissemination materials about behavioral health: a dissemination trial. Implement Sci. 2021;17:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01214-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01214-7
Nelson KL, Powell BJ, Langellier B, Lê-Scherban F, Shattuck P, Hoagwood K, et al. State policies that impact the design of children’s mental health services: a modified delphi study. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2022;49(5):834–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-022-01201-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10488-022-01201-6
pubmed: 35737191
pmcid: 9219374
Smith NR, Mazzucca S, Hall MG, Hassmiller Lich K, Brownson RC, Frerichs L. Opportunities to improve policy dissemination by tailoring communication materials to the research priorities of legislators. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00274-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00274-6
Purtle J, Lê-Scherban F, Wang X, Shattuck PT, Proctor EK, Brownson RC. Audience segmentation to disseminate behavioral health evidence to legislators: an empirical clustering analysis. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0816-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0816-8
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Bruns EJ, Hoagwood KE. Dissemination strategies to accelerate the policy impact of children’s mental health services research. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71(11):1170–8. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900527 .
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900527
pubmed: 32517640
pmcid: 9721469
Martinez-Hume AC, Baker AM, Bell HS, Montemayor I, Elwell K, Hunt LM. “They treat you a different way:” public insurance, stigma, and the challenge to quality health care. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2017;41(1):161–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-016-9513-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s11013-016-9513-8
pubmed: 28025774
Galewitz P. Evaluations of Medicaid experiments by states, CMS are weak, GAO says. Kaiser Heal News. 2018;1–5. https://khn.org/news/evaluations-of-medicaid-experiments-by-states-cms-are-weak-gao-says/ . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Medicaid demonstrations: evaluations yielded limited results, underscoring need for changes to federal policies and procedures. 2018. GAO-19-220. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689506.pdf . Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Thompson FJ, Burke C. Executive federalism and Medicaid demonstration waivers: implications for policy and democratic process. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2007;32(6):971–1004. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2007-039 .
doi: 10.1215/03616878-2007-039
pubmed: 18000157
National Association of Medicaid Directors. Seventh Annual State Medicaid Operations Survey. 2019. https://medicaiddirectors.org/publications/seventh-annual-medicaid-operations-survey/ .
Grogan CM, Andrews C, Abraham A, Humphreys K, Pollack HA, Smith BT, et al. Survey highlights differences in Medicaid coverage for substance use treatment and opioid use disorder medications. Health Aff. 2016;35(12):2289–96. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0623 .
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0623
Willison CE, Singer PM, Grazier KL. Double-edged sword of federalism: variation in essential health benefits for mental health and substance use disorder coverage in states. Heal Econ Policy Law. 2019;16(2):170–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133119000306 .
doi: 10.1017/S1744133119000306
Roesch SC, Villodas M, Villodas F. Latent class/profile analysis in maltreatment research: a commentary on Nooner et al., Pears et al., and looking beyond. Child Abuse Negl. 2010;34(3):155–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHIABU.2010.01.003 .
doi: 10.1016/J.CHIABU.2010.01.003
pubmed: 20207416
Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, Muthén BO. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 2007;14(4):535–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396 .
doi: 10.1080/10705510701575396
Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R. How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8 .
doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
Becan JE, Bartkowski JP, Knight DK, Wiley TRAA, DiClemente R, Ducharme L, et al. A model for rigorously applying the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework in the design and measurement of a large scale collaborative multi-site study. Heal Justice. 2018;6(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-018-0068-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s40352-018-0068-3
Purtle J, Stadnick NA. Earmarked taxes as a policy strategy to increase funding for behavioral health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71(1):100–4. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900332 .
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900332
pubmed: 31590621
Wegner LD, Kral AH, Bluthenthal RN, Morris T, Ongais L, Lambdin BH. Ingenuity and resiliency of syringe service programs on the front lines of the opioid overdose and COVID-19 crises. Transl Res. 2021;234:159–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2021.03.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2021.03.011
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(1):4–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7
pubmed: 21197565
Lengnick-Hall R, Willging C, Hurlburt M, Fenwick K, Aarons GA. Contracting as a bridging factor linking outer and inner contexts during EBP implementation and sustainment: a prospective study across multiple US public sector service systems. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-00999-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-00999-9
pubmed: 32527274
pmcid: 7288508
Lengnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, Dickson KS, Moullin JC, Aarons GA. Forms and functions of bridging factors: specifying the dynamic links between outer and inner contexts during implementation and sustainment. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01099-y .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01099-y
pubmed: 33794956
pmcid: 8015179
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Henson RM, Horwitz SM, McKay MM, Hoagwood KE. Policy makers’ priorities for addressing youth substance use and factors that influence priorities. Psych Serv. 2021;73(4):388–95. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps202000919 .
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps202000919
Stewart RE, Wolk CB, Neimark G, Vyas R, Young J, Tjoa C, et al. It’s not just the money: the role of treatment ideology in publicly funded substance use disorder treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;120:108176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108176 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108176
pubmed: 33298303
Crable EL, Jones DK, Walley AY, Hicks JM, Benintendi A, Drainoni M-L. How do medicaid agencies improve substance use treatment benefits? Lessons from three states’ 1115 waiver experiences. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2022;47(4):497–518. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9716740 .
doi: 10.1215/03616878-9716740
pubmed: 35044466
Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, Rabin B, Aarons GA. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6
pubmed: 30611302
pmcid: 6321673
Crable EL, Legnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, Moullin JC, Aarons GA. Where is "policy" is dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example. Implementation Science.2022;17:80.
Aarons GA, Ehrhart MG, Farahnak LR. The implementation leadership scale (ILS): development of a brief measure of unit level implementation leadership. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-45 .
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-45
pubmed: 24731295
pmcid: 4022333
Mazzucca S, Parks RG, Tabak RG, Allen P, Dobbins M, Stamatakis KA, et al. Assessing organizational supports for evidence-based decision making in local public health departments in the United States: development and psychometric properties of a new measure. J Public Heal Manag Pract. 2019;25(5):454–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000952 .
doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000952
Allen P, Pilar M, Walsh-Bailey C, Hooley C, Mazzucca S, Lewis CC, et al. Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01007-w .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01007-w
pubmed: 32560661
pmcid: 7304175
Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(3):229–38. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023254226592 .
doi: 10.1023/a:1023254226592
pubmed: 12769135
Purtle J, Dodson EA, Brownson RC. Uses of research evidence among US state legislators who prioritize behavioral health issues. Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67(12):1355. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500443 .
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500443
pubmed: 27364817
pmcid: 5133144
Brownson RC, Dodson EA, Stamatakis KA, Casey CM, Elliott MB, Luke DA, et al. Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(4):306–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq529 .
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq529
pubmed: 21212381
pmcid: 3039727
Goering P, Butterill D, Jacobson N, Sturtevant D. Linkage and exchange at the organizational level: a model of collaboration between research and policy. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(Supp 2). https://doi.org/10.1258/135581903322405126 .
Little D. Organizations as actors: Microfoundations of organizational intentionality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 2020;50(3):260–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393120917642 .
doi: 10.1177/0048393120917642
Holt D, Elliot D. Methods of weighting for unit non-response. Stat. 1991;40:333–42.
Lanza ST, Rhoades BL. Latent class analysis: an alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prev Sci. 2013;14(2):157–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1
pubmed: 21318625
pmcid: 3173585
Tein J-Y, Coxe S, Cham H. Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20(4):640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781 .
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2013.824781
Park J, Yu H-T. Recommendations on the sample sizes for multilevel latent class models. Educ Psychol Measure. 2017;78(5):737–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417719111 .
doi: 10.1177/0013164417719111
Mäkikangas A, Tolvanen A, Aunola K, Feldt T, Mauno S, Kinnunen U. Multilevel latent profile analysis with covariates: identifying job characteristics profiles in hierarchical data as an example. Organ Res Methods. 2018;21(4):931–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118760690 .
doi: 10.1177/1094428118760690
Dziak JJ, Lanza ST, Tan X. Effect size, statistical power and sample size requirements for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test in latent class analysis. Struct Equ Model. 2014;21(4):534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919819 .
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.919819
Collier ZK, Leite WL. A comparison of three-step approaches for auxiliary variables in latent class and latent profile analysis. Struct Equ Model. 2017;24(6):819–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1365304 .
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2017.1365304
Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: three-step approaches using Mplus. Struct Equ Model. 2014;21(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181 .
Minjung K, Jeroen V, Zsuzsa B, Thomas J, Lee VHM. Modeling predictors of latent classes in regression mixture models. Struct Equ Model. 2016;23(4):601–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1158655 .
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2016.1158655
Shannon C. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27(3).
Brownson RC, Eyler AA, Harris JK, Moore JB, Tabak RG. Getting the word out: new approaches for disseminating public health science. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018;24(2):102–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673 .
doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673
pubmed: 28885319
pmcid: 5794246
Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 .
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-139
pubmed: 24289295
pmcid: 3882890
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
pubmed: 20957426
Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. 2017;12:108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3 .
Kraemer HC, Mintz J, Noda A, Tinklenberg J, Yesavage JA. Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(5):484–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484 .
doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484
pubmed: 16651505
Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psychiatr Res. 2011;45(5):626–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.10.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.10.008
pubmed: 21035130
Moore CG, Carter RE, Nietert PJ, Stewart PW. Recommendations for planning pilot studies in clinical and translational research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4(5):332–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00347.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00347.x
pubmed: 22029804
pmcid: 3203750
Collins LM, Lanza ST. Latent class and latent transition analysis: with applications in the social behavioral, and health sciences: Wiley; 2010.
Jacobs JA, Dodson EA, Baker EA, Deshpande AD, Brownson RC. Barriers to evidence-based decision making in public health: a national survey of chronic disease practitioners. Public Health Rep. 2010;125(5):736–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491012500516 .
doi: 10.1177/003335491012500516
pubmed: 20873290
pmcid: 2925010
Beidas RS, Dorsey S, Lewis CC, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Purtle J, et al. Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01226-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01226-3