Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title
Austin EJ, Chen J, Ferro L, Saxon AJ, Fortney JC, Curran GM, Ratzliff AD, Williams EC. Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial. Implementation research and practice. 2024 Aug 14; 5:26334895241267023.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in practice-based implementation research, yet too often research prioritizes and is most successful in academic settings. During a national implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of Collaborative Care for co-occurring opioid use and mental health disorders, we lost three of our 11 participating implementation sites, all representing community sites. METHOD: To better understand needed supports for implementation trial participation, we conducted exit interviews ( = 5) with key staff at these community sites. Interview transcripts were double-coded and analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process. Qualitative themes were iteratively reviewed by the study team. RESULTS: Three themes emerged characterizing challenges for community sites, including that: (1) research threatens sites' most precious resource-staff; (2) staff lack comfort with and skills for research; and (3) research participation in its current form does not offer a clear return on investment. CONCLUSIONS: Learnings from this work illuminate some of the barriers community sites face when trying to participate in multisite implementation research. An undercurrent of participant perspectives was the belief that community sites like theirs are just not set up to successfully participate in clinical trial research, including population-based implementation trials. Future implementation trials should consider strategies that disrupt traditional approaches, increasing the equitable inclusion of diverse practice settings in implementation research.