Implementation measurement in global mental health
Results from a modified Delphi panel and investigator survey
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15700545 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Christopher G Kemp (0000-0003-1231-1546, Johns Hopkins University, corresponding author), Kristen Danforth (0000-0002-7409-6661, University of Washington), Luke R Aldridge (0000-0003-2683-4006, Johns Hopkins University), Laura Murray (0000-0001-8409-4697, Johns Hopkins University), E E Haroz (0000-0003-1833-4925, Johns Hopkins University) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Pages | e74-e74 |
| Publication date | 2023-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cambridge Prisms Global Mental Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2054-4251 • E-ISSN: 2054-4251 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/gmh.2023.63 |
| PMID | 38024804 |
| OpenAlex | W4388044002 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 34 |
Limited guidance exists to support investigators in the choice, adaptation, validation and use of implementation measures for global mental health implementation research. Our objectives were to develop consensus on best practices for implementation measurement and identify strengths and opportunities in current practice. We convened seven expert panelists. Participants rated approaches to measure adaptation and validation according to appropriateness and feasibility. Follow-up interviews were conducted and a group discussion was held. We then surveyed investigators who have used quantitative implementation measures in global mental health implementation research. Participants described their use of implementation measures, including approaches to adaptation and validation, alongside challenges and opportunities. Panelists agreed that investigators could rely on evidence of a measure's validity, reliability and dimensionality from similar contexts. Panelists did not reach consensus on whether to establish the pragmatic qualities of measures in novel settings. Survey respondents ( n = 28) most commonly reported using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Inner Setting Measures ( n = 9) and the Program Assessment Sustainability Tool ( n = 5). All reported adapting measures to their settings; only two reported validating their measures. These results will support guidance for implementation measurement in support of mental health services in diverse global settings
Delphi · Delphi method · Medical education · Mental health · Psychiatry · Community Health and Development · Computer Science · Delphi Technique in Research · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Psychology · Artificial Intelligence
Assessing the Organizational Social Context (OSC) of Mental Health Services
Welcome to Implementation Science
Mixed Method Designs in Implementation Research
The implementation leadership scale (ILS)
Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers
Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
Undertreatment of people with major depressive disorder in 21 countries
The System Usability Scale
Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice
The theory of planned behaviour
Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019
The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool
Delphi Panels
Implementation Outcomes and Indicators as a New Challenge in Health Services Research
Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research
Feeling Thermometers Versus 7-Point Scales
| Highly cited | No |
|---|