Clinician training, then what? Randomized clinical trial of child STEPs psychotherapy using lower-cost implementation supports with versus without expert consultation.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation of evidence-based treatments in funded trials is often supported by expert case consultation for clinicians; this may be financially and logistically difficult in clinical practice. Might less costly implementation support produce acceptable treatment fidelity and clinical outcomes? METHOD: To find out, we trained 42 community clinicians from four community clinics in Modular Approach to Therapy for Children (MATCH), then randomly assigned them to receive multiple lower-cost implementation supports (LC) or expert MATCH consultation plus lower-cost supports (CLC). Clinically referred youths (N = 200; ages 7-15 years, M = 10.73; 53.5% male; 32.5% White, 27.5% Black, 24.0% Latinx, 1.0% Asian, 13.5% multiracial, 1.5% other) were randomly assigned to LC (n = 101) or CLC (n = 99) clinicians, and groups were compared on MATCH adherence and competence, as well as on multiple clinical outcomes using standardized measures (e.g., Child Behavior Checklist, Youth Self-Report) and idiographic problem ratings (Top Problems Assessment). RESULTS: Coding of therapy sessions revealed substantial therapist adherence to MATCH in both conditions, with significantly stronger adherence in CLC; however, LC and CLC did not differ significantly in MATCH competence. Trajectories of change on all outcome measures were steep, positive, and highly similar for LC and CLC youths, with no significant differences; a supplemental analysis of posttreatment outcomes also showed similar LC and CLC posttreatment scores, with most LC-CLC differences nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that effective implementation of a complex intervention in clinical practice may be supported by procedures that are less costly and logistically challenging than expert consultation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Honouring the role of community in community health work with Cambodian Americans.

Despite surviving extreme forms of violence, torture and other traumas during the Khmer Rouge genocide and forced migration, Cambodian Americans experience devastating health inequities and barriers to health access in the United States (U.S.). From the perspective of Cambodian American community health workers (CHWs), we explored three aims in this community-based participatory research (CBPR), qualitative study: Cambodian Americans' understanding of health, community health work strategies that improve health access of Cambodian Americans, and action steps that improve health access for Cambodian Americans. From 2014 to 2016, our two-phased study spanned seven U.S. states, which included a focus group (n = 5) and 16 semistructured interviews. Participants identified an indigenous concept of health, and micro-level (e.g. service navigation, peer education) and mezzo-level interventions (e.g. community building, coalition work) to improve health access. Finally, Khmer Health Advocates, a community-based health advocacy organisation, served as a vital study partner in this CBPR study.