A Pilot Project to Integrate Individualized Measurement Into Measurement-Based Care in a Child Partial Hospitalization Program.

Measurement-based care (MBC), or the regular use of progress measures to inform clinical decision-making, improves quality of care and clinical outcomes. MBC typically focuses on standardized rather than individualized outcome measurement. In this pilot study, we examined the clinical utility of integrating individualized measurement with existing standardized outcome monitoring in a children's partial hospitalization program. Participants were 48 youth (M age 10.13 ±â€¯1.39; 54.2% male, 41.7% female, 4.2% transgender or nonbinary). Comorbidity was common; 83.4% of youth had more than one diagnosis at intake. Using the Youth Top Problems for individualized outcome measurement, we examined Top Problem content and clinical improvement over time. Finally, we examined completion rates and describe implementation issues. Top Problems were heterogeneous and sensitive to change. Of the 144 problems, 107 (74%) had a focus consistent with measures used in program, while 37 (26%) were not captured by standardized measures used in program. Effect sizes from admission to final measurement ranged from Cohen's d = .75 - 1.00. Initial adoption of the MBC was strong, but sustained use of the system over the treatment course was challenging. Individualized outcome measurement in children's partial hospitalization programs is feasible to administer and sensitive to clinical change that is unique from change captured in standardized measures. Parents were able to self-identify clinically meaningful, highly individualized Top Problems. Challenges of implementation and clinical assessment in acute settings and potential strategies for improving implementation are discussed.

Study protocol: Novel Methods for Implementing Measurement-Based Care with youth in Low-Resource Environments (NIMBLE).

BACKGROUND: For youth receiving care in community mental health centers, comorbidities are the rule rather than the exception. Using measurement-based care (MBC), or the routine evaluation of symptoms to inform care decisions, as the foundation of treatment for youth with comorbid problems significantly improves the impact of psychotherapy by focusing care and building engagement and alliance. MBC increases the rate of symptom improvement, detects clients who would otherwise deteriorate, and alerts clinicians to non-responders. Despite its demonstrated utility, MBC is rarely implemented with fidelity; less than 15% of providers report using MBC per recommendations. Previous efforts to support MBC implementation have yielded suboptimal outcomes, in part, due to organizations' challenges with identifying and prioritizing barriers and selecting and developing strategies to overcome them. New methods are needed for identifying and prioritizing barriers, and matching strategies to barriers to optimize MBC implementation and treatment quality to improve youth mental health outcomes in community settings. METHODS: Pragmatic implementation methods will be piloted in four diverse community mental health centers. Methods include (a) rapid evidence synthesis; (b) rapid ethnography; (c) design kits (e.g., kits with disposable cameras, journals, maps); (d) barrier prioritization, and (e) causal pathway diagramming. These activities will generate actionable barriers; subsequently, we will use facilitated group processes to prioritize barriers and develop causal pathway diagrams to match strategies to barriers to create implementation plans that optimize MBC fidelity (Aim 1). We will track strategy deployment for 6 months, then compare MBC fidelity for another 6 months post-implementation with data from 2 years of historical controls (Aim 2). Finally, we will co-design a toolkit for design kit methods with youth and the practice and scientific communities (Aim 3). DISCUSSION: Optimizing MBC implementation in community mental health centers could transform youth mental health care by ensuring the most pressing symptoms are targeted early in treatment. The discussion section highlights expected challenges and limits to using the five methods, including recruitment and engagement given the high pressure on community mental health settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT05644756 . Registered on 18 November 2022. This trial was retrospectively registered.

Can a Single Measure Estimate Protocol Adherence for Two Psychosocial Treatments for Youth Anxiety Delivered in Community Mental Health Settings?

Treatment adherence measurement can be time and resource-intensive in clinical trials, so the ability to measure protocol adherence for two distinct treatment programs with a single measure may benefit the field. The present study sought to determine if the Therapy Process Observational Coding System - Revised Strategies Scale (TPOCS-RS) could assess protocol adherence to two youth treatment programs. Treatment sessions (N = 796) from 55 youth (M age = 9.89 years, SD = 1.71; range 7-15 years; 55.0% White; 46.0% female) with primary anxiety problems treatment by 39 clinicians (M age = 40.54 years, SD = 9.56; 50.0% White; 80.0% female) were independently scored by coders using observational treatment adherence and alliance measures. The youth received one of three treatments: (a) Standard (i.e., cognitive-behavioral treatment program), (b) Modular (i.e., a program with cognitive-behavioral and parent training components), or (c) Usual Care. Consultants filled out a self-report measure of protocol adherence within the Standard and Modular conditions. Interrater reliability, ICC(2,2) for the various items for the full sample ranged from .17 to .92 (M ICC = .67; SD = .17). Scores from a TPOCS-RS subscale that mapped onto the specific content of the treatment protocols used in the Standard and Modular conditions evidenced convergent validity with the consultant-report adherence measure and discriminant validity with the alliance measure. The model-specific TPOCS-RS subscales also discriminated between the Standard and Modular treatments and Usual Care. This study provides initial evidence that (a) the TPOCS-RS has utility in estimating protocol adherence in different treatment programs and (b) support the score validity of the self-report consultation records.

Development and Initial Psychometrics of a Generic Treatment Integrity Measure Designed to Assess Practice Elements Targeting Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes in Early Childhood Settings.

Though treatment integrity measurement is important for research intended to promote social and behavioral outcomes of children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBDs) in early childhood settings, measurement gaps exist in the field. This paper reports on the development and preliminary psychometric assessment of the treatment integrity measure for early childhood settings (TIMECS), an observational measure designed to address existing measurement gaps related to treatment integrity with tier 2 interventions in the early childhood field. To assess the preliminary score reliability (interrater) and validity (construct, discriminant) of the TIMECS, live observations (N = 650) in early childhood classrooms from 54 teachers (92.6% female, 7.4% male; 61.1% White) and 91 children (M age = 4.53 years, SD = .44; 45.1% female, 54.9% male; 45.1% Black) at risk for EBDs were scored by 12 coders using the TIMECS and an observational measure designed to assess teacher-child interactions. Teachers also self-reported on the quality of the teacher-child relationship. Interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients, ICC [2,2]) for the quantity (i.e., adherence) item scores had a mean of .81 (SD = .07; range from .68 to .95), and the quality (i.e., competence) item scores had a mean of .69 (SD = .08; range from .52 to .80). Scores on the TIMECS Quantity and Quality items and scales showed evidence of construct validity, with the magnitude of the correlations suggesting that the quantity and quality items assess distinct components of treatment integrity. A TIMECS quantity scale also showed promise for intervention evaluation research by discriminating between teachers who had and had not been trained in a specific evidence-based intervention targeting social and behavioral skills in early childhood. The findings support the potential of the TIMECS to assess treatment integrity of teacher-delivered practices designed to address child social and behavioral outcomes of children at risk for EBDs in early childhood settings.

Are therapist adherence and competence related to clinical outcomes in cognitive-behavioral treatment for youth anxiety?

INTRODUCTION: Studies have found that psychological treatments produce positive clinical outcomes for many problems experienced by youth. However, there is limited research on whether therapist adherence and competence in delivering these treatments are related to differential clinical outcomes. METHOD: We examined the relationship of therapist adherence and competence to clinical outcomes in a sample of 51 youth aged 7-14 years (M age = 10.36, SD = 1.90; 86.3% white; 60.8% male) treated for anxiety disorders with a manualized individual cognitive-behavioral therapy. Adherence and competence were measured via coding of recorded treatment session content and outcomes were measured by caregiver and youth report across multiple timepoints. We used two-level mixed-effects regression models to test the degree to which adherence and competence predicted differential youth clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Across multiple caregiver- and child-reported symptom and diagnostic outcomes, we found no statistically significant relationship between adherence or competence and clinical outcomes. DISCUSSION: Although there was variability in both treatment integrity and clinical outcome, neither adherence to nor competence in youth anxiety treatment was related to clinical outcomes for youth with anxiety disorders treated with individual cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) in a research clinic-based efficacy trial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Correction to: The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: a methodology to promote rigorous evaluation.

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors reported an important acknowledgement was mistakenly omitted from the 'Acknowledgements' section. The full acknowledgement is included in this Correction article.

Treatment integrity in psychotherapy research and implications for the delivery of quality mental health services.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment integrity, or the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended, serves a crucial function as an independent variable check in treatment outcome research. Implementation science focuses on understanding and improving the processes (e.g., training, supervision, monitoring) that establish and support treatment integrity in community settings. This review assessed the adequacy of treatment integrity procedures (i.e., establishing, assessing, evaluating, and reporting integrity) implemented in treatment outcome research with the goals of updating the review by Perepletchikova, Treat, and Kazdin (2007) and connecting findings to implementation science goals. METHOD: Using the Implementation of Treatment Integrity Procedures Scale (Perepletchikova et al., 2007), 2 trained raters coded the treatment integrity procedures described by randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions published in 6 high-impact-factor journals from 2011 to 2015 (N = 188 studies describing 270 treatments). RESULTS: Compared with Perepletchikova et al., current findings indicate significant improvement, but the frequency of adequate treatment integrity implementation remains low (10.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for future work include focus on conceptualization of treatment integrity, establishment of treatment integrity standards, and use of findings from implementation science to improve treatment integrity procedures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

An updated protocol for a systematic review of implementation-related measures.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science is the study of strategies used to integrate evidence-based practices into real-world settings (Eccles and Mittman, Implement Sci. 1(1):1, 2006). Central to the identification of replicable, feasible, and effective implementation strategies is the ability to assess the impact of contextual constructs and intervention characteristics that may influence implementation, but several measurement issues make this work quite difficult. For instance, it is unclear which constructs have no measures and which measures have any evidence of psychometric properties like reliability and validity. As part of a larger set of studies to advance implementation science measurement (Lewis et al., Implement Sci. 10:102, 2015), we will complete systematic reviews of measures that map onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al., Implement Sci. 4:50, 2009) and the Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al., Adm Policy Ment Health. 38(2):65-76, 2011), the protocol for which is described in this manuscript. METHODS: Our primary databases will be PubMed and Embase. Our search strings will be comprised of five levels: (1) the outcome or construct term; (2) terms for measure; (3) terms for evidence-based practice; (4) terms for implementation; and (5) terms for mental health. Two trained research specialists will independently review all titles and abstracts followed by full-text review for inclusion. The research specialists will then conduct measure-forward searches using the "cited by" function to identify all published empirical studies using each measure. The measure and associated publications will be compiled in a packet for data extraction. Data relevant to our Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) will be independently extracted and then rated using a worst score counts methodology reflecting "poor" to "excellent" evidence. DISCUSSION: We will build a centralized, accessible, searchable repository through which researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders can identify psychometrically and pragmatically strong measures of implementation contexts, processes, and outcomes. By facilitating the employment of psychometrically and pragmatically strong measures identified through this systematic review, the repository would enhance the cumulativeness, reproducibility, and applicability of research findings in the rapidly growing field of implementation science.

Identifying Common Practice Elements to Improve Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes of Young Children in Early Childhood Classrooms.

Educators are increasingly being encouraged to implement evidence-based interventions and practices to address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of young children who exhibit problem behavior in early childhood settings. Given the nature of social-emotional learning during the early childhood years and the lack of a common set of core evidence-based practices within the early childhood literature, selection of instructional practices that foster positive social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for children in early childhood settings can be difficult. The purpose of this paper is to report findings from a study designed to identify common practice elements found in comprehensive intervention models (i.e., manualized interventions that include a number of components) or discrete practices (i.e., a specific behavior or action) designed to target social, emotional, and behavioral learning of young children who exhibit problem behavior. We conducted a systematic review of early childhood classroom interventions that had been evaluated in randomized group designs, quasi-experimental designs, and single-case experimental designs. A total of 49 published articles were identified, and an iterative process was used to identify common practice elements. The practice elements were subsequently reviewed by experts in social-emotional and behavioral interventions for young children. Twenty-four practice elements were identified and classified into content (the goal or general principle that guides a practice element) and delivery (the way in which a teacher provides instruction to the child) categories. We discuss implications that the identification of these practice elements found in the early childhood literature has for efforts to implement models and practices.

Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria.

BACKGROUND: High-quality measurement is critical to advancing knowledge in any field. New fields, such as implementation science, are often beset with measurement gaps and poor quality instruments, a weakness that can be more easily addressed in light of systematic review findings. Although several reviews of quantitative instruments used in implementation science have been published, no studies have focused on instruments that measure implementation outcomes. Proctor and colleagues established a core set of implementation outcomes including: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability (Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 36:24-34, 2009). The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Instrument Review Project employed an enhanced systematic review methodology (Implement Sci 2: 2015) to identify quantitative instruments of implementation outcomes relevant to mental or behavioral health settings. METHODS: Full details of the enhanced systematic review methodology are available (Implement Sci 2: 2015). To increase the feasibility of the review, and consistent with the scope of SIRC, only instruments that were applicable to mental or behavioral health were included. The review, synthesis, and evaluation included the following: (1) a search protocol for the literature review of constructs; (2) the literature review of instruments using Web of Science and PsycINFO; and (3) data extraction and instrument quality ratings to inform knowledge synthesis. Our evidence-based assessment rating criteria quantified fundamental psychometric properties as well as a crude measure of usability. Two independent raters applied the evidence-based assessment rating criteria to each instrument to generate a quality profile. RESULTS: We identified 104 instruments across eight constructs, with nearly half (n = 50) assessing acceptability and 19 identified for adoption, with all other implementation outcomes revealing fewer than 10 instruments. Only one instrument demonstrated at least minimal evidence for psychometric strength on all six of the evidence-based assessment criteria. The majority of instruments had no information regarding responsiveness or predictive validity. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation outcomes instrumentation is underdeveloped with respect to both the sheer number of available instruments and the psychometric quality of existing instruments. Until psychometric strength is established, the field will struggle to identify which implementation strategies work best, for which organizations, and under what conditions.

The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: a methodology to promote rigorous evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Identification of psychometrically strong instruments for the field of implementation science is a high priority underscored in a recent National Institutes of Health working meeting (October 2013). Existing instrument reviews are limited in scope, methods, and findings. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project's objectives address these limitations by identifying and applying a unique methodology to conduct a systematic and comprehensive review of quantitative instruments assessing constructs delineated in two of the field's most widely used frameworks, adopt a systematic search process (using standard search strings), and engage an international team of experts to assess the full range of psychometric criteria (reliability, construct and criterion validity). Although this work focuses on implementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health and health-care settings, the methodology and results will likely be useful across a broad spectrum of settings. This effort has culminated in a centralized online open-access repository of instruments depicting graphical head-to-head comparisons of their psychometric properties. This article describes the methodology and preliminary outcomes. METHODS: The seven stages of the review, synthesis, and evaluation methodology include (1) setting the scope for the review, (2) identifying frameworks to organize and complete the review, (3) generating a search protocol for the literature review of constructs, (4) literature review of specific instruments, (5) development of an evidence-based assessment rating criteria, (6) data extraction and rating instrument quality by a task force of implementation experts to inform knowledge synthesis, and (7) the creation of a website repository. RESULTS: To date, this multi-faceted and collaborative search and synthesis methodology has identified over 420 instruments related to 34 constructs (total 48 including subconstructs) that are relevant to implementation science. Despite numerous constructs having greater than 20 available instruments, which implies saturation, preliminary results suggest that few instruments stem from gold standard development procedures. We anticipate identifying few high-quality, psychometrically sound instruments once our evidence-based assessment rating criteria have been applied. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this methodology may enhance the rigor of implementation science evaluations by systematically facilitating access to psychometrically validated instruments and identifying where further instrument development is needed.

Instrumentation issues in implementation science.

BACKGROUND: Like many new fields, implementation science has become vulnerable to instrumentation issues that potentially threaten the strength of the developing knowledge base. For instance, many implementation studies report findings based on instruments that do not have established psychometric properties. This article aims to review six pressing instrumentation issues, discuss the impact of these issues on the field, and provide practical recommendations. DISCUSSION: This debate centers on the impact of the following instrumentation issues: use of frameworks, theories, and models; role of psychometric properties; use of 'home-grown' and adapted instruments; choosing the most appropriate evaluation method and approach; practicality; and need for decision-making tools. Practical recommendations include: use of consensus definitions for key implementation constructs; reporting standards (e.g., regarding psychometrics, instrument adaptation); when to use multiple forms of observation and mixed methods; and accessing instrument repositories and decision aid tools. SUMMARY: This debate provides an overview of six key instrumentation issues and offers several courses of action to limit the impact of these issues on the field. With careful attention to these issues, the field of implementation science can potentially move forward at the rapid pace that is respectfully demanded by community stakeholders.