Contributions to the literature
-
This is the first scoping review to explore how first-level leadership shapes implementation determinants and outcomes for behavioral health services.
-
The positive relationship between first-level transformational leadership and providers’ EBP attitudes was a primary focus of studies; however, the evidence linking provider attitudes to implementation outcomes is, at best, mixed.
-
There was very limited evidence linking any form of first-level leadership to a specific implementation outcome and findings were inconsistent.
-
Our qualitative synthesis suggests that there is significant conceptual overlap in behaviors described in the theories of implementation leadership and middle managers’ role in implementation, highlighting the need to disentangle how these strategic forms of implementation leadership uniquely relate to EBP implementation.
-
We offer conceptual and methodological guidance for the field to advance our understanding of whether and how first-level leadership supports EBP implementation.
Introduction
Rationale for the scoping review
Current study
Method
Search strategy
Study inclusion and exclusion criteria
Study selection and quality assessment
Data extraction
Information extracted | Description |
---|---|
Author | List of authors |
Year | Publication year |
Title | Study title |
Country | Country where the study was conducted |
Setting | Physical location where the study was conducted (e.g., mental health agency) |
Design | Study design as reported or inferred from study methods (e.g., observational, experimental) |
Study methodology | Study methodology (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) |
Data sources | Types of instruments used (e.g., survey, interview) |
Measures | Names of measures used and respondents |
Construct validity | Whether or not measures had established construct validity |
EBP or clinical innovation | EBP or clinical innovation being implemented |
Phase of implementation | Stage of the EBP implementation (exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment, multiple, no active implementation, or not reported) |
Leader role | Level of leadership included and leaders’ role in supporting EBP delivery or implementation |
First-level leadership | Leadership style, behaviors or characteristics examined |
Inner-context outcomes | EPIS inner-context factors examined |
Implementation outcomes | Implementation outcomes examined |
Level of analysis | Level at which studies measured and analyzed leadership and inner-context and implementation outcomes (individual, team, organization) |
Results | Description of the nature of the associations between leadership and inner-context and implementation outcomes |
Data synthesis
Results
Study characteristics
Study methods
First author | Leadership type(s) | Inner-context outcomes | IS outcomes | Design | Setting | IS phase | Key leadership findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aarons 2006 [81] | TfL, TrL | IC | N/a | Obs | CMH | NI | TrL and TfL positively predicted providers' EBPA. |
Aarons et al. 2012 [82] | TfL | OC, IC; L | N/a | Exp | CW | I | During EBP implementation, TfL positively predicted InnCli, and InnCli positively predicted providers' EBPA. When delivering services as usual, LMX mediated the relation between leaders' TfL and InnCli. |
Aarons et al. 2015 [28] | TfL | OC | N/a | Obs | MH | NI | OrgCul suffered more where leaders rated their TfL more positively than providers rated them, in contrast to where leaders rated themselves lower than providers. OrgCul tended to be better when providers and leaders agreed the leaders’ TfL was high than when they agreed it was low. |
Aarons et al. 2016 [83] | TfL, TrL; PaL, LB | N/a | Sus | Obs | CMH, CW, Oth | Sus | TfL positively predicted sustainment, and PaL negatively predicted sustainment. Leaders’ ongoing championing of EBP and practical support for providers facilitated sustainment. |
Aarons et al. 2017 [45] | IL | OC | N/a | Obs | MH | NI | OrgCli of involvement and performance feedback were highest when leaders rated their IL low and providers rated leaders’ IL high. Involvement climate did not differ when leaders and providers agreed that IL was strong compared with when they agreed it was weak. Performance feedback climate was higher when leaders and providers agreed that IL was strong. |
Brimhall et al. 2016 [84] | TfL | OC, IC | N/a | Obs | CMH | NI | Greater TfL indirectly influenced providers' perceptions of EBPs as less burdensome through higher EmpCli and lower DemoCli. |
Bunger et al., 2019 [65] | LB | OC | N/a | Obs | CW | I | Leaders’ activities influenced aspects of ImpCli including conveying expectations, providing support, and rarely rewarding implementation. Leaders conveyed expectations through diffusing information, synthesizing information, mediating between agency strategy and day-to-day activities, and selling implementation. Leaders supported implementation through diffusing, synthesizing, and mediating. They conveyed rewards through diffusing. |
Corrigan et al. 2002 [85] | TfL, TrL, PaL | OC, IC | N/a | Obs | H, MH | NI | TfL was positively associated with transformational OrgCul. LfL and passive MBE were negatively associated with a TrC. TfL was positively associated with TrC based on leader report, but negatively associated with TrC based on provider report. Passive MBE was positively associated with TrC based on provider report. TfL was negatively associated with burnout among providers and leaders. |
Fenwick et al. 2018 [86] | TfL | IC, F | N/a | Obs | CMH | NI | TfL and LMX positively predicted providers' attitudes toward feedback. LMX mediated the relation between TfL and providers’ attitudes toward feedback. |
Fleury et al. 2014 [87] | LB | N/a | GI | Obs | MH, Oth | P, I | Inaccessibility of leaders, leader turnover, and leaders’ poor communication were barriers to implementation. |
Green et al. 2014 [88] | TfL | OC | N/a | Obs | CMH | NI | Leaders’ TfL positively predicted EmpCli. |
Guerrero et al. 2014 [89] | LC | N/a | A | Obs | AH | NR | Leaders’ EBPA and readiness-for-change attributes positively predicted implementation of contingency management treatment. Leaders’ openness towards EBPs positively predicted implementation of medication-assisted treatment.* |
Guerrero et al. 2020 [15] | IL | IC | A | Obs | AH | I | IL was positively associated with provider's EBPA. IL did not mediate the relation among top leaders’ TfL and A. |
Mancini et al. 2009 [90] | LB | N/a | GI | Obs | H, MH | I | Leaders’ failure to empower staff, poor organizational skills, poor management of internal dynamics and workload, and turnover were barriers to high-F implementation. Leaders understanding of the model, effective management of team dynamics, holding staff accountable, advocating on behalf of provider teams, empowering staff, conveying a sense of mission to the provider team, and equitably distributing the workload facilitated implementation. |
Moser et al. 2005 [91] | LB, LC | N/a | GI | Obs | MH | P, I | Leaders’ turnover, lack of familiarity with the intervention, and lack of investment in implementation were barriers to implementation. Leader familiarity with the intervention facilitated implementation. |
Powell et al. 2017 [92] | TfL, IL | IC | N/a | Obs | CMH | I, Sus, NI | TfL-idealized influence positively predicted providers’ knowledge of EBP. TfL-individual consideration negatively predicted providers' EBPA. Proactive IL positively predicted providers’ EBPA. Perseverant IL negatively predicted providers’ EBPA. |
Rapp et al. 2010 [93] | LB | N/a | GI | Obs | MH | I | Leader behaviors were the greatest barrier to implementation, including: not setting expectations; only providing consultation on service-delivery when challenges arose; lacking prescriptions or structure to providers' practice; being overly conflict-avoidant; lacking meaningful feedback for providers; having only superficial knowledge of clinician practice; relying on coaxing and persuasion with no consequences for poor performance; poorly leading group supervision, which was dominated by administrative tasks; lacking follow-through; having competing responsibilities; lacking knowledge of EBP skills and feeling inadequate at supervising practice. |
Savill et al. 2018 [94] | LB | N/a | GI | Obs | MH, SMH | I | Leaders facilitated implementation by working to incorporate EBP procedures into existing workflows (i.e., assessment checklists and forms) and meeting regularly with senior administrators and staff to monitor and troubleshoot implementation difficulties. |
Van Erp et al. 2007 [95] | LB, LC | N/a | GI | Obs | MH | I | Lack of time for leaders to manage the intervention was a barrier to implementation. Leaders' strong personal commitment demonstrated by their dedication and enthusiasm to implement the intervention facilitated implementation. |
Van Erp et al. 2009 [96] | LB | N/a | GI | Obs | H, MH | I | Leaders’ inability to administer the implementation process and to realize necessary conditions for implementation were barriers to implementation. Leader motivation facilitated implementation. |
Williams et al. 2020 [97] | IL | OC | A | Quas | CMH | Mul | Increases in IL had a significant indirect effect on increases in clinicians’ EBP use via improvement in EBP ImpCli. |
Characteristics | N (%) |
---|---|
Settinga | |
Child welfare | 3 (14%) |
Mental health agencies | 17 (81%) |
Substance use agencies | 2 (10%) |
Hospital | 3 (14%) |
Other | 3 (14%) |
Country | |
Canada | 1 (5%) |
Netherlands | 2 (10%) |
United States | 18 (86%) |
Design | |
Observational | 19 (90%) |
Quasi-/Experimental | 2 (10%) |
Method | |
Quantitative | 12 (57%) |
Qualitative | 6 (29%) |
Mixed | 3 (14%) |
Data sourcea | |
Survey | 15 (71%) |
Interview | 8 (38%) |
Focus groups | 3 (14%) |
Field notes | 3 (14%) |
Record reviews | 3 (14%) |
Used a leadership questionnaire | 13 (62%) |
Used a validated questionnaire (n = 13) | 12 (92%) |
Used a partially validated questionnaire (n = 13) | 1 (8%) |
Used an inner-context and/or implementation outcome questionnaire | 15 (71%) |
Used a validated questionnaire (n = 15) | 11 (73%) |
Used a partially validated questionnaire (n = 15) | 11 (73%) |
Used an unvalidated questionnaire (n = 15) | 1 (7%) |
Implemented a clinical innovation | 13 (62%) |
Phase of implementationa | |
Preparation | 2 (10%) |
Implementation | 11 (52%) |
Sustainment | 2 (10%) |
Multiple phases (unspecified) | 1 (5%) |
No active implementation | 8 (38%) |
Not reported | 1 (5%) |
Leadership examineda | |
General leadership | 16 (76%) |
Transformational leadership | 14 (67%) |
Transactional leadership | 6 (29%) |
Passive-avoidant leadership | 4 (19%) |
Strategic leadership | 12 (57%) |
Implementation leadership | 11 (52%) |
Middle-managers’ roles in implementationb | 6 (29%) |
EBP championb | 2 (10%) |
Leader behaviorsb (uncategorized) | 5 (24%) |
Leader characteristicsb (uncategorized) | 1 (5%) |
Inner-context outcomesa | 12 (57%) |
Organizational characteristicsa | 8 (38%) |
Organizational climate | 3 (14%) |
Organizational culture | 2 (10%) |
Implementation climate | 2 (10%) |
Innovation climate | 1 (5%) |
Individual characteristicsa | 8 (38%) |
Attitudes towards EBP | 6 (29%) |
Knowledge of EBP | 1 (5%) |
Burnout | 1 (5%) |
Implementation outcomes | 11 (52%) |
Adoption | 3 (14%) |
Fidelity | 1 (5%) |
General implementation | 6 (29%) |
Sustainment | 1 (5%) |
Level | Leadership | Inner-context | Implementation |
---|---|---|---|
Individual | 4 (19%) | 9 (43%) | 2 (10%) |
Team | 9 (43%) | 4 (19%) | 0 (0%) |
Organization | 8 (38%) | 2 (10%) | 9 (43%) |
Leaders and leadership styles examined
Term | Definition |
---|---|
A process of intentional efforts, by an individual who directly supervises frontline employees who do not manage others, to motivate, influence, and enable a person or group of people with the aim of impacting group or organizational outcomes | |
Transformational leadership [41] | Inspiring and motivating employees to perform beyond expectations |
Inspirational motivation | Possessing a shared vision and high expectations that inspire and motivate others |
Idealized influence | Embodying the values and behaviors to fulfill this vision |
Intellectual stimulation | Challenging others to rethink ways they perform their duties and soliciting their ideas |
Individualized consideration | Attending to the individual needs and feelings of employees |
Transactional leadership [41] | Relying on reinforcement and exchanges to promote performance on tasks that are part of one’s role |
Contingent reward | Assigning and setting reward contingencies for fulfilling tasks |
Management by exception–active | Actively identifying and addressing employee mistakes or performance shortcomings |
Passive-avoidant leadership [42] | Avoiding making decisions and/or managing employees |
Management by exception–passive | Passively waiting for errors and issues and then addressing them |
Laissez-faire | Taking a “hands off” approach by altogether avoiding making decisions or managing employees |
Implementation leadership [20] | Leading in ways that are intended to promote the implementation of EBP |
Proactive | Anticipating and addressing implementation challenges |
Knowledgeable | Possessing a deep understanding of EBP implementation |
Perseverant | Being consistent, resolute, and responsive to EBP implementation |
Supportive | Supporting providers’ EBP adoption and use |
EBP champion [64] | Convincing others to accept the innovation through educating, advocating, building relationships and navigating boundaries |
Effective organization | Coordinating employees and tasks to efficiently accomplish goals |
Managing team relationships | Promoting group cohesion by attending to social dynamics between employees |
Equitably distributing work | Dividing work tasks in a fair manner |
Managing competing priorities | Attending to implementation tasks among competing priorities and workloads |
Facilitating communication | Ensuring information is communicated across varying levels of an organization |
EBP buy-in | Agreeing with or supporting an EBP and its implementation |
Inner-context factors
Term | Definition |
---|---|
Organizational characteristics | Structures or processes that take place and/or exist in organizations that may influence implementation [29] |
Implementation climate | The extent to which organizational members perceive that innovation use is expected, supported, and rewarded [56] |
Innovation climate | The shared perception of the extent of an organizations’ openness to new innovations [57] |
Organizational climate | “The shared meaning organizational members attach to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behaviors they perceive being expected, rewarded and supported” [58] |
Empowering climate | Organizational members perceptions of fairness, perceived opportunities for growth and advancement, and role clarity [59] |
Demoralizing climate | Organizational members perceptions of depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and role conflict [59] |
Organizational culture | The norms and shared behavioral expectations within an organization [60] |
Individual characteristics | Shared or unique characteristics of individuals (e.g., provider, supervisor, director) that influence implementation [29] |
Burnout | A psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment [61] |
Attitudes toward EBPs | Provider perceptions of the appeal of EBPs, requirements to adopt EBPs, openness to innovation, and perceived divergence between new and current practice [62] |
Knowledge of EBPs | Provider familiarity, awareness, or understanding of EBPs |
Implementation outcomes
Relationships between leadership and inner-context outcomes
Leadership style | N (%) | Dir | Inner-context outcomes | N (%) | Dir | Implementation outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General leadership | ||||||
Transformational | 1 (5%) | – | Burnout [85] | 1 (5%) | + | Sustainment [83] |
5 (24%) | +/– | |||||
1 (5%) | +/ | EBP knowledge [92] | ||||
1 (5%) | + | Innovation climatea [82] | ||||
2 (10%) | + | |||||
2 (10%) | + – | |||||
Transactional | 1 (5%) | / | Burnoutc [85] | 1 (5%) | / | Sustainmentd [83] |
1 (5%) | + | EBP attitudesab [81] | ||||
1 (5%) | / | Organizational cultureac [85] | ||||
Passive-avoidant | 1 (5%) | / | Burnout [85] | 1 (5%) | – | Sustainmentd [83] |
1 (5%) | –/ | Organizational culturea [85] | ||||
Strategic leadership | ||||||
Implementation | 2 (10%) | +/– | 2 (10%) | +/ | ||
1 (5%) | / | EBP Knowledge [92] | ||||
1 (5%) | + | Implementation Climatea [97] | ||||
1 (5%) | + | Organizational Climatea [45] | ||||
Leader characteristics | ||||||
EBP attitudes | 1 (5%) | +/ | Adoption [89] | |||
Readiness-for-change | 1 (5%) | +/ | Adoption [89] |
Barriers | N (%)a | Facilitators | N (%)a | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Inner-context outcomes | ||||
Implementation Climate | Strategic leadership | 1 (5%) | General leadership | 1 (5%) |
Low implementation leadership [65] | 1 (5%) | High transformational leadership [65] | 1 (5%) | |
Low middle managers’ implementation role [65] | 1 (5%) | Strategic leadership | 1 (5%) | |
High implementation leadership [65] | 1 (5%) | |||
High middle managers’ implementation roles [65] | 1 (5%) | |||
Implementation outcomes | ||||
Fidelity | General leadership | 1 (5%) | General leadership | 1 (5%) |
Low transformational leadership [90] | 1 (5%) | High transformational leadership [90] | 1 (5%) | |
Behaviors | 1 (5%) | High transactional leadership [90] | 1 (5%) | |
Inequitable workload distribution [90] | 1 (5%) | Strategic leadership | 1 (5%) | |
Poor organization [90] | 1 (5%) | High implementation leadership [90] | 1 (5%) | |
Poor management of team relations [90] | 1 (5%) | High middle managers’ implementation roles [90] | 1 (5%) | |
Behaviors | 1 (5%) | |||
Equitable workload distribution [90] | 1 (5%) | |||
Good management of team relations [90] | 1 (5%) | |||
Implementation | General leadership | 3 (14%) | General leadership | 2 (10%) |
2 (10%) | 2 (10%) | |||
2 (10%) | Strategic leadership | 3 (10%) | ||
Strategic leadership | 3 (14%) | 2 (10%) | ||
3 (14%) | 2 (10%) | |||
Low middle managers’ implementation roles [93] | 1 (5%) | High EBP champion [95] | 1 (5%) | |
Behaviors | 3 (14%) | Characteristics | 1 (5%) | |
2 (10%) | High EBP buy-in [68] | 1 (5%) | ||
Poor communication [87] | 1 (5%) | |||
Characteristics | 1 (5%) | |||
Low EBP buy-in [91] | 1 (5%) | |||
Sustainment | Strategic leadership | 1 (5%) | ||
High implementation leadership [83] | 1 (5%) | |||
High middle managers’ implementation roles [83] | 1 (5%) | |||
High EBP champion [83] | 1 (5%) |