Providers (N = 198) from 38 Department of Veterans Affairs residential posttraumatic stress disorder treatment programs across the United States completed qualitative interviews regarding implementation of 2 evidence-based treatments: prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy. As part of this investigation, providers were asked how they decide which patients are appropriate for these treatments. Many indicated that they did not perceive any patient factors that dissuade their use of either evidence-based treatment. However, 3 broad categories emerged surrounding reasons that patients were perceived to be less suitable candidates for the treatments: the presence of psychiatric comorbidities, cognitive limitations, and low levels of patient motivation. Interestingly, providers’ perceived reasons for limited or nonuse of a treatment did not correspond entirely to those espoused by treatment developers. Possible solutions to address provider concerns, including educational and motivational interventions, are noted.

There has been little investigation of the natural course of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) over time following the draw-down of initial implementation efforts. Thus, we undertook qualitative interviews with the providers at 38 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ residential treatment programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to understand implementation and adaptation of 2 EBTs, prolonged exposure (PE), and cognitive processing therapy (CPT), at 2 time points over a 4-year period. The number of providers trained in the therapies and level of training improved over time. At baseline, of the 179 providers eligible per VA training requirements, 65 (36.4%) had received VA training in PE and 111 (62.0%) in CPT with 17 (9.5%) completing case consultation or becoming national trainers in both PE and CPT. By follow-up, of the increased number of 190 eligible providers, 87 (45.8%) had received VA training in PE and 135 (71.1%) in CPT, with 69 (36.3%) and 81 (42.6%) achieving certification, respectively. Twenty-two programs (57.9%) reported no change in PE use between baseline and follow-up, whereas 16 (42.1%) reported an increase. Twenty-four (63.2%) programs reported no change in their use of CPT between baseline and follow-up, 12 (31.6%) programs experienced an increase, and 2 (5.2%) programs experienced a decrease in use. A significant number of providers indicated that they made modifications to the manuals (e.g., tailoring, lengthening). Reasons for adaptations are discussed. The need to dedicate time and resources toward the implementation of EBTs is noted.

Thirty-eight U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) residential treatment programs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) participated in a formative evaluation of their programmatic services, including evidenced-based treatments (EBTs), between July 2008 and March 2011. Face-to-face qualitative interviews were conducted with over 250 staff by an independent psychologist along with on-site participant observations. This evaluation coincided with a national VA dissemination initiative to train providers in two EBTs for PTSD, Prolonged Exposure (PE) and Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT). A substantial proportion of eligible (based on professional background) residential treatment providers received training in PE (37.4%) or CPT (64.2%), with 9.5% completing case consultation or becoming national trainers in each therapy respectively. In semi-structured interviews, providers reported that their clinical programs had adopted these EBTs at varying levels ranging from no adoption to every patient receiving the full protocol. Suggestions for improving the adoption of PE and CPT are noted, including distilling manualized treatments to essential common elements.

BackgroundGreenhalgh et al. used a considerable evidence-base to develop a comprehensive model of implementation of innovations in healthcare organizations [1]. However, these authors did not fully operationalize their model, making it difficult to test formally. The present paper represents a first step in operationalizing Greenhalgh et al.’s model by providing background, rationale, working definitions, and measurement of key constructs.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted for key words representing 53 separate sub-constructs from six of the model’s broad constructs. Using an iterative process, we reviewed existing measures and utilized or adapted items. Where no one measure was deemed appropriate, we developed other items to measure the constructs through consensus.ResultsThe review and iterative process of team consensus identified three types of data that can been used to operationalize the constructs in the model: survey items, interview questions, and administrative data. Specific examples of each of these are reported.ConclusionDespite limitations, the mixed-methods approach to measurement using the survey, interview measure, and administrative data can facilitate research on implementation by providing investigators with a measurement tool that captures most of the constructs identified by the Greenhalgh model. These measures are currently being used to collect data concerning the implementation of two evidence-based psychotherapies disseminated nationally within Department of Veterans Affairs. Testing of psychometric properties and subsequent refinement should enhance the utility of the measures.