Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Although numerous studies have demonstrated that a high percentage of primary care providers (PCPs) are knowledgeable about the American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines for managing ADHD, many fail to implement these guidelines correctly. The goal of this project is to increase the use of evidence-based practices (EBP) for assessing and treating children with ADHD between 5 and 12 years in the context of primary care practice. This randomized controlled trial will evaluate the whether a 3-part intervention (education about ADHD management and communication training, collaborative consultation, and performance feedback regarding use of EBPs) is effective in improving EBP use among primary care providers.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | Clinicians in the intervention arm will receive the three-part intervention (Supporting Practice for ADHD, or SPA) which includes: education about ADHD management and communication training, collaborative consultation, and performance feedback, for the first 8 months of the study. |
|
| Control | Other | Clinicians in the control arm will receive no intervention for the first 8 months of the study, then will receive the full SPA intervention for the last 8 months of the study. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting Practice for ADHD (SPA) | Behavioral | The SPA intervention will last for 8 months for each study arm (first 8 months of the study for the intervention group, last 8 months for the control group). The intervention includes 3 components: 1) a series of web-based educational presentations to provide education to providers about evidence-based practice for managing ADHD and strategies for promoting effective communication with families 2) Collaborative consultation designed to address clinical issues arising in practice will be provided by members of the study team. 3) Providers will be given systematic performance feedback with regard to their use of evidence-based practices for ADHD every 2 months during the 8-month intervention period. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline interval | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician during the baseline interval | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline interval | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician during the baseline interval | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention interval | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale - by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
Not provided
Primary Subjects: Clinicians
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Secondary Subjects: Families
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander G Fiks, MD, MSCE | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia | Principal Investigator |
| Thomas Power, PhD | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children's Hospital of Philadelphia | Philadelphia | Pennsylvania | 19103 | United States |
Not provided
Note: The same group of 105 clinicians participated during both periods. Charts were reviewed for a different random sample of patients in each period (790 patients in total: 391 in the baseline and 399 in the intervention period)
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Intervention Clinicians | Clinicians in the intervention arm received the three-part intervention (Supporting Practice for ADHD, or SPA) which includes: education about ADHD management and communication training, collaborative consultation, and performance feedback, for the first 8 months of the study. |
| FG001 | Control Clinicians | Clinicians in the control arm received no intervention for the first 8 months of the study, then received the full SPA intervention for the last 8 months of the study. |
| FG002 | Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Children aged 5-12 with ADHD seen by a clinician in the intervention group during the study period. |
| FG003 | Patients of Control Clinicians | Children aged 5-12 with an ADHD diagnosis seen by clinicians in the control group during the study period. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline Period- 8 Months |
| |||||||||||||
| Intervention Period- 8 Months |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Intervention Clinicians | Clinicians in the intervention arm received the three-part intervention (Supporting Practice for ADHD, or SPA) which includes: education about ADHD management and communication training, collaborative consultation, and performance feedback, for the first 8 months of the study. |
| BG001 |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Age was only measured for patients. |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
16 months (8 month baseline period and 8 month intervention period)
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Intervention Clinicians | Clinicians in the intervention arm received the three-part intervention (Supporting Practice for ADHD, or SPA) which includes: education about ADHD management and communication training, collaborative consultation, and performance feedback, for the first 8 months of the study. |
Not provided
Not provided
Enrollment occurred within 1 health system among clinicians who were interested in participating in the project and worked in practices that agreed to participate, which may limit generalizability of results.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander Fiks, MD, MSCE | The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia | 2674262304 | fiks@email.chop.edu |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001289 | Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019958 | Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders |
| D065886 | Neurodevelopmental Disorders |
| D001523 | Mental Disorders |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned |
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician during the intervention interval |
| Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention interval | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician during the intervention interval | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Baseline Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Completed All 3 Educational Presentations | We assessed the proportion of clinicians randomized to the intervention group that completed all 3 educational presentations. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Used the Collaborative Consultation Component | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group that posted in the online networking site which was used to facilitate collaborative consultation. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in at Least One Performance Feedback Call | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group who participated in at least one of the four performance feedback calls that were held during the study period. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in All Intervention Components and Attested to Fulfilling MOC Requirements | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group who completed all components of the intervention and attested to fulfilling MOC requirements. | Intervention Period (8 months) |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| Control Clinicians |
Clinicians in the control arm received no intervention for the first 8 months of the study, then received the full SPA intervention for the last 8 months of the study. |
| BG002 | Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Children aged 5-12 with ADHD seen by a clinician in the intervention group during the study period. |
| BG003 | Patients of Control Clinicians | Children aged 5-12 with an ADHD diagnosis seen by clinicians in the control group during the study period. |
| BG004 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Mean |
| Standard Deviation |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Ethnicity was only recorded for patients. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Race was only recorded for patients. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Insurance payer | Insurance payer was only recorded for patients. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Provider Type | Provider type is only applicable to clinician participants. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Baseline Perception of Acceptability of Managing ADHD in Primary Care- Assessing ADHD | These items are from the previously validated ADHD Questionnaire for Primary Care Providers. Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 indicating the highest level of acceptability for each practice activity. | This measure only applies to clinicians. | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale |
|
| Baseline Perception of Acceptability of Managing ADHD in Primary Care- Providing Mental Health Care | These items are from the previously validated ADHD Questionnaire for Primary Care Providers. Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 indicating the highest level of acceptability for each practice activity. | This measure only applies to clinicians. | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale |
|
| Baseline Perception of Acceptability of Managing ADHD in Primary Care- Recommending Medications | These items are from the previously validated ADHD Questionnaire for Primary Care Providers. Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 indicating the highest level of acceptability for each practice activity. | This measure only applied to clinicians. | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale |
|
| Perceived effectiveness at managing ADHD in primary care | These items are from the previously validated ADHD Questionnaire for Primary Care Providers. Scores ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 indicating the highest level of acceptability for each practice activity. | This measure only applies to clinicians. | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale |
|
| OG001 | Patients of Control Clinicians | Children aged 5-12 with an ADHD diagnosis seen by clinicians in the control group during the study period. |
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician during the baseline interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician during the baseline interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician during the intervention interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician during the intervention interval | We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale - by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. | This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Completed All 3 Educational Presentations | We assessed the proportion of clinicians randomized to the intervention group that completed all 3 educational presentations. | This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Used the Collaborative Consultation Component | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group that posted in the online networking site which was used to facilitate collaborative consultation. | This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in at Least One Performance Feedback Call | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group who participated in at least one of the four performance feedback calls that were held during the study period. | This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in All Intervention Components and Attested to Fulfilling MOC Requirements | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group who completed all components of the intervention and attested to fulfilling MOC requirements. | This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Intervention Period (8 months) |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 53 |
| 0 |
| 53 |
| 0 |
| 53 |
| EG001 | Control Clinicians | Clinicians in the control arm received no intervention for the first 8 months of the study, then received the full SPA intervention for the last 8 months of the study. | 0 | 52 | 0 | 52 | 0 | 52 |
| EG002 | Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Children aged 5-12 with ADHD seen by a clinician in the intervention group during the study period. | 0 | 402 | 0 | 402 | 0 | 402 |
| EG003 | Patients of Control Clinicians | Children aged 5-12 with an ADHD diagnosis seen by clinicians in the control group during the study period. | 0 | 388 | 0 | 388 | 0 | 388 |
Not provided
Not provided
| Male |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
|
|
| Missing |
|