Background Sustainment, an outcome indicating an intervention continues to be implemented over time, has been comparatively less studied than other phases of the implementation process. This may be because of methodological difficulties, funding cycles, and minimal attention to theories and measurement of sustainment. This review synthesizes the literature on sustainment measures, evaluates the qualities of each measure, and highlights the strengths and gaps in existing sustainment measures. Results of the review will inform recommendations for the development of a pragmatic, valid, and reliable measure of sustainment. Methods A narrative review of published sustainment outcome and sustainability measures (i.e., factors that influence sustainment) was conducted, including appraising measures in the Society of Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) instrument review project (IRP) and the Dissemination and Implementation Grid-Enabled Measures database initiative (GEM-D&I). The narrative review used a snowballing strategy by searching the reference sections of literature reviews and definitions of sustainability and sustainment. Measures used frequently and judged to be comprehensive and/or validated by a team of implementation scientists were extracted for analysis. Results Eleven measures were evaluated. Three of the included measures were found in the SIRC-IRP, three in the GEM-D&I database, (one measure was in both databases) and six were identified in our additional searches. Thirteen constructs relating to sustainment were coded from selected measures. Measures covered a range of determinants for sustainment (i.e., construct of sustainability) as well as constructs of sustainment as an outcome. Strengths of the measures included, development by expert panels knowledgeable about particular interventions, fields or contexts, and utility in specific scenarios. A number of limitations were found in the measures analyzed including inadequate assessment of psychometric characteristics, being overly intervention or context specific, being lengthy and/or complex, and focusing on outer context factors. Conclusion There is a lack of pragmatic and psychometrically sound measures of sustainment that can be completed by implementation stakeholders within inner context settings (e.g., frontline providers, supervisors).

AbstractIntroduction:Scientific endeavors are increasingly carried out by teams of scientists. While there is growing literature on factors associated with effective science teams, little is known about processes that facilitate the success of dissemination and implementation (D&I) teams studying the uptake of healthcare innovations. This study aimed to identify strategies used by D&I scientists to promote team science.Methods:Using a nominal group technique, a sample of 27 D&I scholars responded to the question, “What strategies have you or others used to promote team science?” Participants were asked to individually respond and then discuss within a small group to determine the group’s top three strategies. Through a facilitated consensus discussion with the full sample, a rank-ordered list of three strategies was determined.Results:A total of 126 individual responses (M = 9; SD = 4.88) were submitted. Through small group discussion, six groups ranked their top three strategies to promote team science. The final ranked list of strategies determined by the full sample included: (1) developing and maintaining clear expectations, (2) promoting and modeling effective communication, and (3) establishing shared goals and a mission of the work to be accomplished.Conclusions:Because of its goal of translating knowledge to practice, D&I research necessitates the use of team science. The top strategies are in line with those found to be effective for teams in other fields and hold promise for improving D&I team cohesion and innovation, which may ultimately accelerate the translation of health innovations and the improvement of care quality and outcomes.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has swiftly and remarkably altered community mental health service delivery and evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation. This study reports provider perspectives on the impact that COVID-19 had on their work and EBP implementation. Methods: Providers (n = 93) completed online surveys with quantitative measures and open-ended items targeting their responses and/or reactions to COVID-19, and to the transition to providing services via telehealth.Results: Perceptions of personal risk and rumination around COVID-19 were low, while telehealth was viewed positively by providers. Three major themes emerged regarding the major impacts of COVID-19 on work: 1) the altered nature of interactions between patient/client and provider, 2) changes in provider expectations regarding productivity, and 3) challenges maintaining work-life balance. In regard to the major impacts of COVID-19 on EBP implementation, three themes emerged: 1) increased difficulty delivering certain therapies via telehealth, 2) potential limitations to session confidentiality, and 3) challenge of engaging children in telehealth. Conclusions: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, community mental health providers continued to engage with clients and implement EBPs while navigating a number of changes related to the transition to telehealth. This study highlights the need for further work on what supports providers need to effectively engage with clients and deliver EBPs via telehealth and has implications for how telehealth is sustained or de-implemented in response to COVID-19.