Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| R34DA046913 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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.
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision-Support | Experimental | An electronic copy of a collaboration decision-support guide. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaboration Decision Support Guide | Other | Electronic toolkit intended to help organizational leaders select partners and negotiate partnerships for implementation. This will contain: 1) a brief summary of collaboration approaches associated with implementation, 2) detailed descriptions of collaboration strategies, 3) a decision analysis tool that guides the selection of collaborative strategies given the community context, and 4) sample contract or agreement language that specifies the nature of the partnership and expectations. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived Acceptability | 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) | One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after presenting the toolkit |
| Perceived Appropriateness | 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) | One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkit |
| Perceived Feasibility | 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) | One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkit |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alicia Bunger, PhD | Ohio State University | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Ohio State University | Columbus | Ohio | 43210 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 39529175 | Derived | Chuang E, Bunger A, Smith R, Girth A, Phillips R, Miech E, Lancaster K, Martin J, Gadel F, Himmeger M, McClellan J, Millisor J, Willauer T, Powell BJ, Dellor E, Aarons GA. Collaboration strategies affecting implementation of a cross-systems intervention for child welfare and substance use treatment: a mixed methods analysis. Implement Sci Commun. 2024 Nov 11;5(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s43058-024-00666-w. | |
| 32677987 | Derived | Bunger AC, Chuang E, Girth A, Lancaster KE, Gadel F, Himmeger M, Saldana L, Powell BJ, Aarons GA. Establishing cross-systems collaborations for implementation: protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2020 Jul 16;15(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01016-9. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Implementation Technical Assistance Providers contracted to support implementation of Ohio START as of January 2024.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | CASPI | Use of the Collaborating Across Systems for Program Implementation (CASPI) toolkit to facilitate implementation support. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | CASPI | Use of the Collaborating Across Systems for Program Implementation (CASPI) toolkit to facilitate implementation support. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized | Binary - Age (adults over 18 yes) |
| 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 | Perceived Acceptability | 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) | Posted | Mar 2024 | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scale points | One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after presenting the toolkit |
|
not monitored
Use of a decision support guide for facilitating implementation of an evidence based practices is not linked to health consequences. All-Cause Mortality, Serious, and Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events were not monitored/assessed
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 | Decision-Support | An electronic copy of a collaboration decision-support guide. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alicia Bunger | The Ohio State University | 614-688-8366 | bunger.5@osu.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Jan 22, 2024 | Sep 15, 2025 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Jan 22, 2024 | Sep 15, 2025 | ICF_001.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019966 | Substance-Related Disorders |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D064419 | Chemically-Induced Disorders |
| D001523 | Mental Disorders |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| Count of Participants |
| Participants |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants | No |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
|
|
| Primary | Perceived Appropriateness | 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) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scale points | One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkit |
|
|
|
| Primary | Perceived Feasibility | 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) | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scale points | One time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkit |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided