Collaborating to Implement Cross-System Interventions in Child Welfare and Substance Use

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Child Maltreatment; System Fragmentation; Substance Use; Implementation
• Interventions: Other: Collaboration Decision Support Guide

• Registration Number: NCT03931005
• Lead Sponsor: Ohio State University

Brief Summary

As a result of the opiate crisis, child welfare agencies have experienced an increase in the number of children in foster care as parental substance use puts children at greater risk of maltreatment. To facilitate implementation of the Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Team (START) model, this study (1) identifies collaborative strategies associated with effective implementation and service outcomes given system and organizational context, (2) uses this evidence to specify strategies and develop a decision support guide to help agency leaders select collaborative strategies, and (3) assesses the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the decision support guide.

Detailed Description

This is a multi-staged, mixed methods study that leverages a naturally occurring policy experiment in southern Ohio. In aim 1, we will examine the collaborative strategies associated with implementation and service outcomes, given the context with 17 counties engaged in the Ohio START pilot project. We will use a convergent mixed methods design, and integrate our qualitative and quantitative data using qualitative comparative analysis. For aim 2, we will specify the collaborative strategies and develop a decision support guide using the VA's model of implementation strategy development (diagnose barriers, and convene an expert panel to design strategies). For aim 3, we assess the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the decision support guide using a sequential mixed methods design. In the first quantitative phase, we will conduct a randomized vignette experiment with agency directors in the 71 Ohio counties that are not involved in the Ohio START pilot project to compare the decision support guide with general implementation support. Our second qualitative phase (which is dominant), will examine feasibility more in-depth by piloting the guide and conducting descriptive case studies with up to three new counties.

Basic Information
|
Recruitment & Eligibility
|
Study & Design
|
Trial Locations

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2019-04-22
• Study First Submitted QC: 2019-04-24
• Study First Posted: 2019-04-29
• Status Verified: 2024-02
• Study Start: 2024-04-25
• Primary Completion: 2024-05-30
• Study Completion: 2024-05-30
• Last Update Submitted: 2024-08-16
• Last Update Posted: 2024-08-19

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 71

Inclusion Criteria

• Our participants for our quantitative vignette experiment will include directors (or top-level leaders who collaborate with other organizations in the community) of public child welfare agencies in Ohio who were not involved in the Ohio START pilot project (n = 68). All individuals will be adults and recruited based on their employment/position.

Read More

Exclusion Criteria

• Individuals who do not hold top-level administrative positions (and have do not the authority to develop organizational partnerships in the community)

Read More

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Decision-Support	Collaboration Decision Support Guide	An electronic copy of a collaboration decision-support guide.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Perceived Appropriateness	One time point (Post-test only), immediately after receipt of intervention	Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) - 4 survey items that assess participants' agreement about the degree to which they perceive the intervention to be appropriate. Participants rate their agreement along a 5 point scale, where 1= completely disagree and 5= completely agree. Scores from the four items will be averaged where higher scores denote greater perceived appropriateness. (Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., ... Halko, H. (2017). Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science, 12(108), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3)
Perceived Acceptability	One time point (Post-test only), immediately after receipt of intervention	Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) - 4 survey items that assess participants' agreement about the degree to which they perceive the intervention to be acceptable. Participants rate their agreement along a 5 point scale, where 1= completely disagree and 5= completely agree. Scores from the four items will be averaged where higher scores denote greater perceived acceptability. (Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., ... Halko, H. (2017). Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science, 12(108), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3)
Perceived Feasibility	One time point (Post-test only), immediately after receipt of intervention	Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) - 4 survey items that assess participants' agreement about the degree to which they perceive the intervention to be feasible. Participants rate their agreement along a 5 point scale, where 1= completely disagree and 5= completely agree. Scores from the four items will be averaged where higher scores denote greater perceived feasibility. (Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., ... Halko, H. (2017). Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science, 12(108), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3)

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

The Ohio State University; 🇺🇸 Columbus, Ohio, United States