Operational and organizational variation in determinants of policy implementation success: the case of policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services.
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2024
31 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
23
07
2024
accepted:
14
10
2024
medline:
1
11
2024
pubmed:
1
11
2024
entrez:
1
11
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Research on determinants of health policy implementation is limited, and conceptualizations of evidence and implementation success are evolving in the field. This study aimed to identify determinants of perceived policy implementation success and assess whether these determinants vary according to: (1) how policy implementation success is operationally defined [i.e., broadly vs. narrowly related to evidence-based practice (EBP) reach] and (2) the role of a person's organization in policy implementation. The study focuses on policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services. Web-based surveys of professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were conducted between 2022 and 2023 (N = 272). The primary dependent variable was a 9-item score that broadly assessed perceptions of the tax policy positively impacting multiple dimensions of outcomes. The secondary dependent variable was a single item that narrowly assessed perceptions of the tax policy increasing EBP reach. Independent variables were scores mapped to determinants in the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Multiple linear regression estimated associations between measures of determinants and policy implementation success. Perceptions of tax attributes (innovation determinant), tax EBP implementation climate (inner-context determinant), and inter-agency collaboration in tax policy implementation (outer-context and bridging factor determinant) were significantly associated with perceptions of policy implementation success. However, the magnitude of associations varied according to how success was operationalized and by respondent organization type. For example, the magnitude of the association between tax attributes and implementation success was 42% smaller among respondents at direct service organizations than non-direct service organizations when implementation success was operationalized broadly in terms of generating positive impacts (β = 0.37 vs. β = 0.64), and 61% smaller when success was operationalized narrowly in terms of EBP reach (β = 0.23 vs. β = 0.59). Conversely, when success was operationalized narrowly as EBP reach, the magnitude of the association between EBP implementation climate and implementation success was large and significant among respondents at direct service organizations while it was not significant among respondents from non-direct service organizations (β = 0.48 vs. β=-0.06). Determinants of perceived policy implementation success may vary according to how policy implementation success is defined and the role of a person's organization in policy implementation. This has implications for implementation science and selecting policy implementation strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Research on determinants of health policy implementation is limited, and conceptualizations of evidence and implementation success are evolving in the field. This study aimed to identify determinants of perceived policy implementation success and assess whether these determinants vary according to: (1) how policy implementation success is operationally defined [i.e., broadly vs. narrowly related to evidence-based practice (EBP) reach] and (2) the role of a person's organization in policy implementation. The study focuses on policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services.
METHODS
METHODS
Web-based surveys of professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were conducted between 2022 and 2023 (N = 272). The primary dependent variable was a 9-item score that broadly assessed perceptions of the tax policy positively impacting multiple dimensions of outcomes. The secondary dependent variable was a single item that narrowly assessed perceptions of the tax policy increasing EBP reach. Independent variables were scores mapped to determinants in the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Multiple linear regression estimated associations between measures of determinants and policy implementation success.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Perceptions of tax attributes (innovation determinant), tax EBP implementation climate (inner-context determinant), and inter-agency collaboration in tax policy implementation (outer-context and bridging factor determinant) were significantly associated with perceptions of policy implementation success. However, the magnitude of associations varied according to how success was operationalized and by respondent organization type. For example, the magnitude of the association between tax attributes and implementation success was 42% smaller among respondents at direct service organizations than non-direct service organizations when implementation success was operationalized broadly in terms of generating positive impacts (β = 0.37 vs. β = 0.64), and 61% smaller when success was operationalized narrowly in terms of EBP reach (β = 0.23 vs. β = 0.59). Conversely, when success was operationalized narrowly as EBP reach, the magnitude of the association between EBP implementation climate and implementation success was large and significant among respondents at direct service organizations while it was not significant among respondents from non-direct service organizations (β = 0.48 vs. β=-0.06).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Determinants of perceived policy implementation success may vary according to how policy implementation success is defined and the role of a person's organization in policy implementation. This has implications for implementation science and selecting policy implementation strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39482703
doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01401-8
pii: 10.1186/s13012-024-01401-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
73Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R21MH125261
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Emmons KM, Gandelman E. Translating behavioral medicine evidence to public policy. J Behav Med. 2019;42(1):84–94.
pubmed: 30825091
pmcid: 9701573
doi: 10.1007/s10865-018-9979-7
Emmons KM, Chambers D, Abazeed A. Embracing policy implementation science to ensure translation of evidence to cancer control policy. Translational Behav Med. 2021;11(11):1972–9.
doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibab147
Oh A, Abazeed A, Chambers DA. Policy implementation science to Advance Population Health: the potential for Learning Health Policy systems. Front Public Health. 2021;9: 681602.
pubmed: 34222180
pmcid: 8247928
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.681602
Emmons KM, Chambers DA. Policy implementation science–an unexplored strategy to address social determinants of health. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(1):133.
pubmed: 33519163
pmcid: 7843047
doi: 10.18865/ed.31.1.133
Ashcraft LE, Quinn DA, Brownson RC. Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020;15:1–7.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01046-3
McGinty EE, Seewald NJ, Bandara S, Cerdá M, Daumit GL, Eisenberg MD, Griffin BA, Igusa T, Jackson JW, Kennedy-Hendricks A, Marsteller J. Scaling interventions to manage chronic disease: innovative methods at the intersection of health policy research and implementation science. Prev Sci. 2024;25(Suppl 1):96–108.
pubmed: 36048400
doi: 10.1007/s11121-022-01427-8
Chriqui JF, Asada Y, Smith NR, Kroll-Desrosiers A, Lemon SC. Advancing the science of policy implementation: a call to action for the implementation science field. Translational Behav Med. 2023;13(11):820–5.
doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibad034
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Bruns EJ, Hoagwood KE. Dissemination strategies to accelerate the policy impact of children’s mental health services research. Psychiatric Serv. 2020;71(11):1170–8.
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900527
Hoagwood KE, Purtle J, Spandorfer J, Peth-Pierce R, Horwitz SM. Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children’s mental health. Am Psychol. 2020;75(8):1130.
pubmed: 33252950
pmcid: 8034490
doi: 10.1037/amp0000706
Brownson RC, Kumanyika SK, Kreuter MW, Haire-Joshu D. Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implement Sci. 2021;16:1–6.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0
Asada Y, Kroll-Desrosiers A, Chriqui JF, Curran GM, Emmons KM, Haire-Joshu D, Brownson RC. Applying hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies in equity-centered policy implementation science. Front Health Serv. 2023;3: 1220629.
pubmed: 37771411
pmcid: 10524255
doi: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1220629
Purtle J, Moucheraud C, Yang LH, Shelley D. Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):111.
pubmed: 37700360
pmcid: 10496363
doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00497-1
Bullock HL, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Mulvale G, Miatello A. Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis. Implement Sci. 2021;16:1–24.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01082-7
Crable EL, Lengnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, Moullin JC, Aarons GA. Where is policy in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):80.
pubmed: 36503520
pmcid: 9742035
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01256-x
Allen P, Pilar M, Walsh-Bailey C, Hooley C, Mazzucca S, Lewis CC, Mettert KD, Dorsey CN, Purtle J, Kepper MM, Baumann AA. Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020;15:1–7.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01007-w
Pilar M, Jost E, Walsh-Bailey C, Powell BJ, Mazzucca S, Eyler A, Purtle J, Allen P, Brownson RC. Quantitative measures used in empirical evaluations of mental health policy implementation: a systematic review. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:26334895221141116.
pubmed: 37091091
pmcid: 9924289
doi: 10.1177/26334895221141116
McHugh S, Dorsey CN, Mettert K, Purtle J, Bruns E, Lewis CC. Measures of outer setting constructs for implementation research: a systematic review and analysis of psychometric quality. Implement Res Pract. 2020;1:2633489520940022.
McLoughlin GM, Kumanyika S, Su Y, Brownson RC, Fisher JO, Emmons KM. Mending the gap: measurement needs to address policy implementation through a health equity lens. Translational Behav Med. 2024;14(4):207–14.
doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibae004
Cruden G, Crable EL, Lengnick-Hall R, Purtle J. Who’s “in the room where it happens”? A taxonomy and five-step methodology for identifying and characterizing policy actors. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):113.
Smith NR, Levy DE, Falbe J, Purtle J, Chriqui JF. Front Health Serv - Implement Sci. 4:1322702. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1322702
Crowley DM, Scott JT, Long EC, et al. Lawmakers’ use of scientific evidence can be improved. Proceed National Acad Sci. 2021;118(9):e2012955118.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2012955118
Williamson A, Barker D, Green S, et al. Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):1–16.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0408-8
Long EC, Pugel J, Scott JT et al. Rapid-Cycle Experimentation with State and Federal policymakers for optimizing the Reach of Racial Equity Research. Am J Public Health 2021(0):e1–4.
Levine AS. Single conversations expand practitioners’ use of research: evidence from a field experiment. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2021;54(3):432–7.
Niederdeppe J, Winett LB, Xu Y, Fowler EF, Gollust SE. Evidence-based message strategies to Increase Public Support for State Investment in Early Childhood Education: results from a longitudinal panel experiment. Milbank Q. 2021.
Niederdeppe J, Roh S, Dreisbach C. How narrative focus and a statistical map shape health policy support among state legislators. Health Commun. 2016;31(2):242–55.
pubmed: 26086340
doi: 10.1080/10410236.2014.998913
Winett LB, Niederdeppe J, Xu Y, Gollust SE, Fowler EF. When tried and true advocacy strategies backfire: narrative messages can undermine State Legislator support for early childcare policies. J Public Interest Commun. 2021;5(1):45–45.
doi: 10.32473/jpic.v5.i1.p45
Brownson RC, Dodson EA, Stamatakis KA, et al. Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(4):306–16.
pubmed: 21212381
pmcid: 3039727
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq529
Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R. How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3(1):1–8.
doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
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. 2022;17(1):38.
pubmed: 35729630
pmcid: 9213102
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01214-7
Scott JT, Collier KM, Pugel J, O’Neill P, Long EC, Fernandes MA, Cruz K, Gay B, Giray C, Crowley DM. SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement: a randomized controlled trial of the SCOPE model on state legislators’ research use in public discourse. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):12.
pubmed: 37147643
pmcid: 10160730
doi: 10.1186/s13012-023-01268-1
Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:1–21.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3
Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15:1–2.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01041-8
Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:1–1.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x
Baicker K, Chandra A. Evidence-based health policy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(25):2413–5.
pubmed: 29262287
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1709816
Stone DA. Policy paradox: the art of political decision making. New York: WW Norton & company; 2022.
Lewis CC, Mettert K, Lyon AR. Determining the influence of intervention characteristics on implementation success requires reliable and valid measures: results from a systematic review. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:2633489521994197.
pubmed: 37090003
pmcid: 9978609
doi: 10.1177/2633489521994197
Farahnak LR, Ehrhart MG, Torres EM, Aarons GA. The influence of transformational leadership and leader attitudes on subordinate attitudes and implementation success. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2020;27(1):98–111.
doi: 10.1177/1548051818824529
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2011;38:65–76.
doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Ettelt S, Mays N, Allen P. The multiple purposes of policy piloting and their consequences: three examples from national health and social care policy in England. J Social Policy. 2015;44(2):319–37.
doi: 10.1017/S0047279414000865
Lee MJ, Maranda MJ, Magura S, Greenman GJ. References to evidence-based program registry (EBPR) websites for behavioral health in US State government statutes and regulations. J Appl Soc Sci (Boulder). 2022;16(2):442–58.
pubmed: 35873708
doi: 10.1177/19367244221078278
Maranda MJ, Lee-Easton MJ, Magura S. Variations in definitions of evidence-based interventions for behavioral health in eight selected US states. Eval Rev. 2022;46(4):363–90.
pubmed: 35544762
doi: 10.1177/0193841X221100356
Walker SC, Lyon AR, Aos S, Trupin EWJA, Health PM, Research MHS. The consistencies and vagaries of the Washington state inventory of evidence-based practice: the definition of evidence-based. Policy Context. 2017;44:42–54.
Brownson RC, Shelton RC, Geng EH, Glasgow RE. Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):26.
pubmed: 35413917
pmcid: 9004065
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01201-y
Wensing M, Sales A, Aarons GA, Xu D, Wilson P. Evidence for objects of implementation in healthcare: considerations for Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):83.
pubmed: 36527104
pmcid: 9758917
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01249-w
Wilkinson M. Paying for public spending: is there a role for earmarked taxes? Fisc Stud. 1994;15(4):119–35.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5890.1994.tb00213.x
Bös D. Earmarked taxation: welfare versus political support. J Public Econ. 2000;75(3):439–62.
doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00075-4
Buchanan JM. The economics of earmarked taxes. J Polit Econ. 1963;71(5):457–69.
doi: 10.1086/258794
Purtle J, Stadnick NA, Wynecoop M, Bruns EJ, Crane ME, Aarons G. A policy implementation study of earmarked taxes for mental health services: study protocol. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):37.
pubmed: 37004117
pmcid: 10067193
doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00408-4
Purtle J, Stadnick NA. Earmarked taxes as a policy strategy to increase funding for behavioral health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71(1):100–4.
pubmed: 31590621
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201900332
Purtle J, Brinson K, Stadnick NA. Earmarking excise taxes on recreational cannabis for investments in mental health: an underused financing strategy. Paper presented at: JAMA Health Forum. 2022.
Purtle J, Wynecoop M, Crane ME, Stadnick NA. Earmarked taxes for mental health services in the United States: a local and state legal mapping study. The Milbank Quarterly. 2023;101(2):457–85.
Purtle J, Stadnick NA, Wynecoop M, Walker SC, Bruns EJ, Aarons GA. A Tale of Two Taxes: Implementation of Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health Services in California and Washington State. Psychiatr Serv. 2024;75(5):410–8.
Stadnick, NA., Geremia, C., Mauri, A., Swanson, K., Wynecoop, M., Purtle, J. A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Implementation of Policies That Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health. The Milbank Quarterly. 2024 Sep 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12715 .
Purtle J, Stadnick N, Wynecoop M, Walker SC, Bruns EJ, Aarons GA. Acceptability and feasibility of policy implementation strategies for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services. Front Health Serv. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1304049 .
doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1304049
pubmed: 39076770
pmcid: 11285065
Starks SL, Arns PG, Padwa H, et al. System transformation under the California Mental Health services Act: implementation of full-service partnerships in LA County. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(6):587–95.
pubmed: 28142386
pmcid: 6005368
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500390
Ashwood JS, Kataoka SH, Eberhart NK, et al. Evaluation of the mental health services act in los angeles county: implementation and outcomes for key programs. Rand Health Q. 2018;8(1):2.
pubmed: 30083423
pmcid: 6075804
Brookman-Frazee L, Stadnick N, Roesch S, et al. Measuring sustainment of multiple practices fiscally mandated in children’s mental health services. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016;43(6):1009–22.
pubmed: 27020796
pmcid: 5040615
doi: 10.1007/s10488-016-0731-8
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2011;38(1):4–23.
doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Horwitz SMC, McKay MM, Hoagwood KE. Determinants of using children’s mental health research in policymaking. Variation type Res use Phase Policy Process. 2021;16(1):1–15.
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Horwitz SM, Palinkas LA, McKay MM, Hoagwood KE. Impacts of COVID-19 on mental health safety net services for youths: a national survey of agency officials. Psychiatr Serv. 2022;73(4):381–7.
pubmed: 34320821
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202100176
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. Psychiatr Serv. 2022;73(4):388–95.
pubmed: 34384231
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000919
Purtle J, Stadnick NA. Earmarked Taxes as a Policy Strategy to Increase Funding for Behavioral Health Services. Psychiatric Services. 2019:appi. ps. 201900332.
Martin IW, Lopez JL, Olsen LJUAR. Policy design and the politics of city revenue: evidence from California municipal. Ballot Meas. 2019;55(5):1312–38.
Tahk SC. Public choice theory and earmarked taxes. Tax L Rev. 2014;68:755.
World Health Organization. Health taxes: a primer for WHO staff. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
Dye RF, McGuire TJ. The effect of earmarked revenues on the level and composition of expenditures. Public Fin Quart. 1992;20(4):543–56.
doi: 10.1177/109114219202000410
Bell E, Wehde W, Stucky M. Supplement or supplant? Estimating the impact of state lottery earmarks on higher education funding. Nutrients. 2020;15(1):136–63.
Nguyen-Hoang P. Volatile earmarked revenues and state highway expenditures in the United States. Transportation. 2015;42(2):237–56.
doi: 10.1007/s11116-014-9534-5
Leland S, Chattopadhyay J, Maestas C, Piatak JJG. Policy venue preference and relative trust in government in federal systems. 2021;34(2):373–93.
Pew Public Trust in Government. 1958–2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/
Crowley GR, Hoffer AJJFYOGT. Paternalism, fiscal discrimination in the twenty-First Century. Arlington VMCaGMU. Earmarking Tax Revenues: Leviathan’s Secret Weapon?; 2018.
Perreault WD. Controlling order-effect bias. Public Opinion Quart. 1975;39(4):544–51.
doi: 10.1086/268251
Allen MS, Iliescu D, Greiff S. Single item measures in psychological science. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2022;38(1).
Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA, Farahnak LR. Assessing the organizational context for EBP implementation: the development and validity testing of the implementation climate scale (ICS). Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):157.
pubmed: 25338781
pmcid: 4210525
doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0157-1
Leeman J, Birken SA, Powell BJ, Rohweder C, Shea CM. Beyond implementation strategies: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice. Implement Sci. 2017;12:1–9.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0657-x
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Lengnick-Hall R, et al. Inter-agency collaboration is associated with increased frequency of research use in children’s mental health policy making. Health Serv Res. 2022;57:842–52.
pubmed: 35285023
pmcid: 9264471
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13955
Purtle J. Public opinion about evidence-informed health policy development in US Congress. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(6):1549–53.
pubmed: 31209499
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster. 2010.
Stewart RE, Marcus SC, Hadley TR, Hepburn BM, Mandell DSJPS. State adoption of incentives to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health systems. 2018;69(6):685–8.
O’brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant. 2007;41(5):673–90.
doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
Cooper M, Evans Y, Pybis J. Interagency collaboration in children and young people’s mental health: a systematic review of outcomes, facilitating factors and inhibiting factors. Child Care Health Dev. 2016;42(3):325–42.
pubmed: 26860960
doi: 10.1111/cch.12322
Aarons GA, Fettes DL, Hurlburt MS, et al. Collaboration, negotiation, and coalescence for interagency-collaborative teams to scale-up evidence-based practice. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2014;43(6):915–28.
pubmed: 24611580
pmcid: 4294431
doi: 10.1080/15374416.2013.876642
Hurlburt M, Aarons GA, Fettes D, Willging C, Gunderson L, Chaffin MJ. Interagency collaborative team model for capacity building to scale-up evidence-based practice. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014;39:160–8.
pubmed: 27512239
pmcid: 4976939
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.005
Green AE, Trott E, Willging CE, Finn NK, Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA. The role of collaborations in sustaining an evidence-based intervention to reduce child neglect. Child Abuse Negl. 2016;53:4–16.
pubmed: 26712422
doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.11.013
Chuang E, Wells R. The role of inter-agency collaboration in facilitating receipt of behavioral health services for youth involved with child welfare and juvenile justice. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2010;32(12):1814–22.
pubmed: 21076622
pmcid: 2976554
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.002
Walker SC, Baquero B, Bekemeier B, Parnes M, Arora K. Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):44.
pubmed: 37735397
pmcid: 10512571
doi: 10.1186/s13012-023-01295-y
Walker SC, Ahrens KR, Owens MD, Parnes M, Langley J, Ackerley C, Purtle J, Saldana L, Aarons GA, Hogue A, Palinkas LA. (in press). Using Policy Codesign to Achieve Multi-sector Alignment in Adolescent Behavioral Health: A Study Protocol. Implementation Science Communications. Accepted April 9, 2024.
Wellstead A, Howlett M. Public value and procedural policy instrument specifications in “design for service”. Policy Des Pract. 2024;4:1–4.
Smith NR, Knocke KE, Hassmiller Lich K. Using decision analysis to support implementation planning in research and practice. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):83.
pubmed: 35907894
pmcid: 9338582
doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00330-1
Cruden G, Frerichs L, Powell BJ, Lanier P, Brown CH, Lich KH. Developing a multi-criteria decision analysis tool to support the adoption of evidence-based child maltreatment prevention programs. Prev Sci. 2020;21(8):1059–64.
pubmed: 33040271
pmcid: 7987351
doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01174-8
D’Angelo G, Pullmann MD, Lyon AR. Community engagement strategies for implementation of a policy supporting evidence-based practices: a case study of Washington state. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017;44:6–15.
pubmed: 26094027
doi: 10.1007/s10488-015-0664-7
Shelton RC, Lee M. Sustaining evidence-based interventions and policies: recent innovations and future directions in implementation science. Am Public Health Assoc 2019;109:S132–S134.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304913
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health/king-county-crisis-center-tax-leading-in-tuesdays-special-election/#:~:text=More%20than%2054%25%20of%20voters a.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239811952/california-proposition-1-homeless .
Aarons GA, Ehrhart MG, Moullin JC, Torres EM, Green AEJIS. Testing the leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI) intervention in substance abuse treatment: a cluster randomized trial study protocol. 2017;12:1–11.
Aarons GA, Sklar M, Ehrhart MG, Roesch S, Moullin JC, Carandang K. Randomized trial of the leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI) strategy in substance use treatment clinics. J Subst Use Addict Treat 2024:209437.
Williams NJ, Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA, et al. Improving measurement-based care implementation in youth mental health through organizational leadership and climate: a mechanistic analysis within a randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2024;19(1):29.
pubmed: 38549122
pmcid: 10976812
doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01356-w
Skar A-MS, Braathu N, Peters N, et al. A stepped-wedge randomized trial investigating the effect of the Leadership and Organizational Change for implementation (LOCI) intervention on implementation and transformational leadership, and implementation climate. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):298.
pubmed: 35246135
pmcid: 8895588
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07539-9
Williams NJ, Marcus SC, Ehrhart MG et al. Randomized trial of an organizational implementation strategy to improve measurement-based care fidelity and youth outcomes in community mental health. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023.