ScholarWorksIndianapolis
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse ScholarWorks
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    or
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "VA medical centers"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Factors Affecting Implementation of an Evidence-Based Practice in the VA: Illness Management and Recovery
    (APA, 2015-12) McGuire, Alan B.; Salyers, Michelle P.; White, Dominique A.; Gilbride, Daniel J.; White, Laura M.; Kean, Jacob; Kukla, Marina; Department of Psychology, School of Science
    Objective: Illness management and recovery (IMR) is an evidence-based practice that assists consumers in managing their illnesses and pursuing personal recovery goals. Although research has examined factors affecting IMR implementation facilitated by multifaceted, active roll-outs, the current study attempted to elucidate factors affecting IMR implementation outside the context of a research-driven implementation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 20 local recovery coordinators and 18 local IMR experts were conducted at 23 VA medical centers. Interviews examined perceived and experienced barriers and facilitators to IMR implementation. Data were analyzed via thematic inductive/deductive analysis in the form of crystallization/immersion. Results: Six factors differed between sites implementing IMR from those not providing IMR: awareness of IMR, importer-champions, autonomy-supporting leadership, veteran-centered care, presence of a sensitive period, and presence of a psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery center. Four factors were common in both groups: recovery orientation, evidence-based practices orientation, perceived IMR fit within program structure, and availability of staff time. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: IMR can be adopted in lieu of active implementation support; however, knowledge dissemination appears to be key. Future research should examine factors affecting the quality of implementation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
About IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy Notice
  • Copyright © 2025 The Trustees of Indiana University