Background: Numerous models, frameworks, and theories exist for specific aspects of implementation research, including for determinants, strategies, and outcomes. However, implementation research projects often fail to provide a coherent rationale or justification for how these aspects are selected and tested in relation to one another. Despite this need to better specify the conceptual linkages between the core elements involved in projects, few tools or methods have been developed to aid in this task. The Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) was created for this purpose and to enhance the rigor and transparency of describing the often-complex processes of improving the adoption of evidence-based interventions in healthcare delivery systems. Methods: The IRLM structure and guiding principles were developed through a series of preliminary activities with multiple investigators representing diverse implementation research projects in terms of contexts, research designs, and implementation strategies being evaluated. The utility of the IRLM was evaluated in the course of a 2-day training to over 130 implementation researchers and healthcare delivery system partners. Results: Preliminary work with the IRLM produced a core structure and multiple variations for common implementation research designs and situations, as well as guiding principles and suggestions for use. Results of the survey indicated a high utility of the IRLM for multiple purposes, such as improving rigor and reproducibility of projects; serving as a “roadmap” for how the project is to be carried out; clearly reporting and specifying how the project is to be conducted; and understanding the connections between determinants, strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes for their project. Conclusions: The IRLM is a semi-structured, principle-guided tool designed to improve the specification, rigor, reproducibility, and testable causal pathways involved in implementation research projects. The IRLM can also aid implementation researchers and implementation partners in the planning and execution of practice change initiatives. Adaptation and refinement of the IRLM are ongoing, as is the development of resources for use and applications to diverse projects, to address the challenges of this complex scientific field.

Childhood obesity has become a global pandemic in developed countries, leading to a host of medical conditions that contribute to increased morbidity and premature death. The causes of obesity in childhood and adolescence are complex and multifaceted, presenting researchers and clinicians with myriad challenges in preventing and managing the problem. This article reviews the state of the science for understanding the etiology of childhood obesity, the preventive interventions and treatment options for overweight and obesity, and the medical complications and co-occurring psychological conditions that result from excess adiposity, such as hypertension, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and depression. Interventions across the developmental span, varying risk levels, and service contexts (e.g.,community, school, home, health care systems) are reviewed. Future directions for research are offered with an emphasis on translational issues for taking evidence-based interventions to scale in a manner that will reduce the public health burden of the childhood obesity pandemic.

U.S. health care systems are tasked with alleviating the burden of mental health, but are frequently underprepared and lack workforce and resource capacity to deliver services to all in need. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can increase access to evidence-based mental health care. However, DMHIs commonly do not fit into the day-to-day activities of the people who engage with them, resulting in a research-to-practice gap for DMHI implementation. For health care settings, differences between digital and traditional mental health services make alignment and integration challenging. Specialized attention is needed to improve the implementation of DMHIs in health care settings so that these services yield high uptake, engagement, and sustainment. The purpose of this article is to enhance efforts to integrate DMHIs in health care settings by proposing implementation strategies, selected and operationalized based on the discrete strategies established in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project, that align to DMHI-specific barriers in these settings. Guidance is offered in how these strategies can be applied to DMHI implementation across four phases commonly distinguished in implementation science using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework. Next steps to advance research in this area and improve the research-to-practice gap for implementing DMHIs are recommended. Applying implementation strategies to DMHI implementation will enable psychologists to systematically evaluate this process, which can yield an enhanced understanding of the factors that facilitate implementation success and improve the translation of DMHIs from controlled trials to real-world settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Mental disorders are the predominant chronic diseases of youth, with substantial life span morbidity and mortality. A wealth of evidence demonstrates that the neurodevelopmental roots of common mental health problems are present in early childhood. Unfortunately, this has not been translated to systematic strategies for improving population-level mental health at this most malleable neurodevelopmental period. We lay out a translational Mental Health, Earlier road map as a key future direction for prevention of mental disorder. This paradigm shift aims to reduce population attributable risk of mental disorder emanating from early life, by preventing, attenuating, or delaying onset/course of chronic psychopathology via the promotion of self-regulation in early childhood within large-scale health care delivery systems. The Earlier Pillar rests on a “science of when to worry” that (a) optimizes clinical assessment methods for characterizing probabilistic clinical risk beginning in infancy via deliberate incorporation of neurodevelopmental heterogeneity, and (b) universal primary-care-based screening targeting patterns of dysregulated irritability as a robust transdiagnostic marker of vulnerability to life span mental health problems. The core of the Healthier Pillar is provision of low-intensity selective intervention promoting self-regulation for young children with developmentally atypical patterns of irritability within an implementation science framework in pediatric primary care to ensure highest population impact and sustainability. These Mental Health, Earlier strategies hold much promise for transforming clinical outlooks and ensuring young children’s mental health and well-being in a manner that reverberates throughout the life span.

Implementation research necessitates a shift from clinical trial methods in both the conduct of the study and in the way that it is evaluated given the focus on the impact of implementation strategies. That is, the methods or techniques to support the adoption and delivery of a clinical or preventive intervention, program, or policy. As strategies target one or more levels within the service delivery system, evaluating their impact needs to follow suit. This article discusses the methods and practices involved in quantitative evaluations of implementation research studies. We focus on evaluation methods that characterize and quantify the overall impacts of an implementation strategy on various outcomes. This article discusses available measurement methods for common quantitative implementation outcomes involved in such an evaluation-adoption, fidelity, implementation cost, reach, and sustainment-and the sources of such data for these metrics using established taxonomies and frameworks. Last, we present an example of a quantitative evaluation from an ongoing randomized rollout implementation trial of the Collaborative Care Model for depression management in a large primary healthcare system.

Introduction: The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in response to the challenges of translating biomedical and behavioral interventions from discovery to real-world use. To address the challenge of translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice, the field of implementation science has emerged as a distinct discipline. With the distinction between EBI effectiveness research and implementation research comes differences in study design and methodology, shifting focus from clinical outcomes to the systems that support adoption and delivery of EBIs with fidelity.Methods: Implementation research designs share many of the foundational elements and assumptions of efficacy/effectiveness research. Designs and methods that are currently applied in implementation research include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, hybrid effectiveness–implementation, simulation modeling, and configurational comparative methods.Results: Examples of specific research designs and methods illustrate their use in implementation science. We propose that the CTSA program takes advantage of the momentum of the field's capacity building in three ways: 1) integrate state-of-the-science implementation methods and designs into its existing body of research; 2) position itself at the forefront of advancing the science of implementation science by collaborating with other NIH institutes that share the goal of advancing implementation science; and 3) provide adequate training in implementation science.Conclusions: As implementation methodologies mature, both implementation science and the CTSA program would greatly benefit from cross-fertilizing expertise and shared infrastructures that aim to advance healthcare in the USA and around the world.