Collaborating to Implement Cross-System Interventions in Child Welfare and Substance Use
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Sponsor
- Ohio State University
- Enrollment
- 9
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Perceived Acceptability
Study Overview
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 mixed methods design. In the quantitative phase, we will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of each strategy in the toolkit. Our second qualitative phase (which is dominant), will examine feasibility more in-depth by piloting the guide and conducting descriptive case studies with users.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Na
- Intervention Model
- Single Group
- Primary Purpose
- Health Services Research
- Masking
- None (Participant)
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- Yes
Inclusion Criteria
- •Our participants included implementation support professionals who provide training and technical assistance to child welfare agencies in Ohio that are implementing Ohio START. All individuals will be adults and recruited based on their employment/position.
Exclusion Criteria
- •Individuals who do not provide implementation support.
Arms & Interventions
Decision-Support
An electronic copy of a collaboration decision-support guide.
Intervention: Collaboration Decision Support Guide (Other)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Perceived Acceptability
Time Frame: One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after presenting the toolkit
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 Appropriateness
Time Frame: One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkit
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 Feasibility
Time Frame: One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkit
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)
Secondary Outcomes
No secondary outcomes reported
Investigators
Alicia Bunger
Professor
Ohio State University