Lisa Saldana1, Patricia Chamberlain1, W David Bradford2, Mark Campbell1, John Landsverk3. 1. Center for Research to Practice, United States. 2. University of Georgia; Department of Public Administration and Policy, United States. 3. Child and Adolescent Services Research Center; Director, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Illustrate the value of a strategy used for measuring the costs and resources used in the implementation process over and above the costs of the intervention itself in the context of a two-arm randomized controlled trial. METHODS:Counties in California and Ohio (sites) were invited to implement Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), an alternative to congregate care for youth. Participating sites (n=53) were randomized to one of two implementation = sites share information and move through the implementation process as a cohort facilitated by an MTFC purveyor or (2) Individual Implementation (IND: "as usual") where sites work individually with the MTFC purveyor. The implementations were monitored using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC) measure of a number of observable activities, developed as part of the trial to segment the implementation process into 8 stages of implementation. Resource data gathered from the implementation purveyors and site participants were used to map costs onto each of the 8 stages to generate total cost measures stratified by type of resource and stage of implementation for each of the study arms. RESULTS: The SIC provided a feasible costing template to map costs onto observable activities and to enable the examination of important differences in implementation strategies for an evidence-based practice. The average total implementation cost prior to program start-up of CDT was $133,106; IND cost $118,699. While CDT cost more in a number of stages, it resulted in fewer county staff hours being used and shorter mean times to implementation than IND. In cases where rapidity of implementation of reducing staff time required for implementation is valued, then CDT would be the preferable implementation approach. CONCLUSIONS: The SIC is a useful tool for determining implementation resources needed for new evidence-based practice programs for youth and particularly for comparing different implementation strategies that might be tried in pilot programs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Illustrate the value of a strategy used for measuring the costs and resources used in the implementation process over and above the costs of the intervention itself in the context of a two-arm randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Counties in California and Ohio (sites) were invited to implement Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), an alternative to congregate care for youth. Participating sites (n=53) were randomized to one of two implementation = sites share information and move through the implementation process as a cohort facilitated by an MTFC purveyor or (2) Individual Implementation (IND: "as usual") where sites work individually with the MTFC purveyor. The implementations were monitored using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC) measure of a number of observable activities, developed as part of the trial to segment the implementation process into 8 stages of implementation. Resource data gathered from the implementation purveyors and siteparticipants were used to map costs onto each of the 8 stages to generate total cost measures stratified by type of resource and stage of implementation for each of the study arms. RESULTS: The SIC provided a feasible costing template to map costs onto observable activities and to enable the examination of important differences in implementation strategies for an evidence-based practice. The average total implementation cost prior to program start-up of CDT was $133,106; IND cost $118,699. While CDT cost more in a number of stages, it resulted in fewer county staff hours being used and shorter mean times to implementation than IND. In cases where rapidity of implementation of reducing staff time required for implementation is valued, then CDT would be the preferable implementation approach. CONCLUSIONS: The SIC is a useful tool for determining implementation resources needed for new evidence-based practice programs for youth and particularly for comparing different implementation strategies that might be tried in pilot programs.
Authors: Chuan-Fen Liu; Lisa V Rubenstein; JoAnn E Kirchner; John C Fortney; Mark W Perkins; Scott K Ober; Jeffrey M Pyne; Edmund F Chaney Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Elise Trott Jaramillo; Cathleen E Willging; Amy E Green; Lara M Gunderson; Danielle L Fettes; Gregory A Aarons Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Lisa Saldana; Ian Bennett; Diane Powers; Mindy Vredevoogd; Tess Grover; Holle Schaper; Mark Campbell Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2020-03
Authors: Matthew J Smith; Andrea K Graham; Rachel Sax; E-Shawn Spencer; Lisa A Razzano; Justin D Smith; Neil Jordan Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2019-10-20 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Milton L Wainberg; Kathryn L Lovero; Cristiane S Duarte; Andre Fiks Salem; Milena Mello; Charl Bezuidenhout; Jennifer Mootz; Paulino Feliciano; Antonio Suleman; Palmira Fortunato Dos Santos; Myrna M Weissman; Francine Cournos; Andrea Horvath Marques; Wilza Fumo; Dirceu Mabunda; Jean-Marie E Alves-Bradford; Marcelo Mello; Jair J Mari; Phuti Ngwepe; Zuleyha Cidav; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Andrew Medina-Marino; Melanie Wall; Lidia Gouveia; Maria A Oquendo Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Miya L Barnett; Lauren Brookman-Frazee; Stephanie H Yu; Teresa Lind; Joyce H L Lui; Susan Timmer; Deanna Boys; Anthony Urquiza; Debbie Innes-Gomberg; Daphne Quick-Abdullah; Anna S Lau Journal: Evid Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health Date: 2021-01-08