Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28279207›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2017

Using Getting To Outcomes to facilitate the use of an evidence-based practice in VA homeless programs: a cluster-randomized trial of an implementation support strategy.

Matthew Chinman, Sharon McCarthy, Gordon Hannah, Thomas Hugh Byrne, David A Smelson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01430741 (MISSION-Vet HUD-VASH Implementation Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01430741 nacompletednot on this map

MISSION-Vet HUD-VASH Implementation Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2012 to 2016Enrolled227ConditionsSubstance Related Disorders, Mental IllnessArmsMaintaining Independence and Sobriety Through Systems Integration, Outreach, and Networking (Veterans Edition), Getting To Outcomes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Implementing strategies to prevent infections in acute-care settings.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew ChinmanVISN 4 Mental Illness Research and Clinical Center and the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Chinman@rand.org.ORCID 0000-0001-5390-8723
Sharon McCarthyVISN 4 Mental Illness Research and Clinical Center and the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Gordon HannahVISN 4 Mental Illness Research and Clinical Center and the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Thomas Hugh ByrneVA National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David A SmelsonVA National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

HSRD VA SDP 11-240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncorporating evidence-based integrated treatment for dual disorders into typical care settings has been challenging, especially among those serving Veterans who are homeless. This paper presents an evaluation of an effort to incorporate an evidence-based, dual disorder treatment called Maintaining Independence and Sobriety Through Systems Integration, Outreach, and Networking-Veterans Edition (MISSION-Vet) into case management teams serving Veterans who are homeless, using an implementation strategy called Getting To Outcomes (GTO).

methodsThis Hybrid Type III, cluster-randomized controlled trial assessed the impact of GTO over and above MISSION-Vet Implementation as Usual (IU). Both conditions received standard MISSION-Vet training and manuals. The GTO group received an implementation manual, training, technical assistance, and data feedback. The study occurred in teams at three large VA Medical Centers over 2 years. Within each team, existing sub-teams (case managers and Veterans they serve) were the clusters randomly assigned. The trial assessed MISSION-Vet services delivered and collected via administrative data and implementation barriers and facilitators, via semi-structured interview.

resultsNo case managers in the IU group initiated MISSION-Vet while 68% in the GTO group did. Seven percent of Veterans with case managers in the GTO group received at least one MISSION-Vet session. Most case managers appreciated the MISSION-Vet materials and felt the GTO planning meetings supported using MISSION-Vet. Case manager interviews also showed that MISSION-Vet could be confusing; there was little involvement from leadership after their initial agreement to participate; the data feedback system had a number of difficulties; and case managers did not have the resources to implement all aspects of MISSION-Vet.

conclusionsThis project shows that GTO-like support can help launch new practices but that multiple implementation facilitators are needed for successful execution of a complex evidence-based program like MISSION-Vet.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01430741.

Indexed as

Case ManagementCluster AnalysisEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Plan ImplementationHumansIll-Housed PersonsMental DisordersProgram EvaluationSubstance-Related DisordersUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsVeteransCo-occurring disordersFidelityImplementation supportTechnical assistanceTraining

Identifiers

PMID28279207
PMCPMC5345223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.