Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35164885›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2022

Implementing traumatic brain injury screening in behavioral healthcare: protocol for a prospective mixed methods study.

Kathryn A Coxe-Hyzak, Alicia C Bunger, Jennifer Bogner, Alan K Davis, John D Corrigan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Kathryn A Coxe-HyzakCollege of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 1947 College Road N, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. coxe.6@osu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7813-1081
Alicia C BungerCollege of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 1947 College Road N, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Jennifer BognerDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Alan K DavisCollege of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 1947 College Road N, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
John D CorriganDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

Implementation of Traumatic Brain Injury Screening in Behavioral Healthcare OrganizationsF31NS124263 · NINDS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HYZAK, KATHRYN · 2021 to 2022
$83k
NINDS NIH HHS 1F31NS124263-01NINDS NIH HHS F31 NS124263
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCharacteristics of both individuals and innovations are foundational determinants to the adoption of evidenced-based practices (EBPs). However, our understanding about what drives EBP adoption is limited by few studies examining relationships among implementation determinants and implementation outcomes through theory-driven hypothesis testing. Therefore, drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Diffusion of Innovations Theory, this study will disentangle relationships between provider characteristics and innovation factors on the early adoption of the Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) in behavioral health settings.

methodsThis study will utilize an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. In Phase I (quantitative), Time 1, we will investigate behavioral health providers (N = 200) attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and intentions to screen for TBI upon completion of a video module introducing the OSU TBI-ID. At Time 2, we will examine the number of TBI screens conducted over the previous month, as well as the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of using the OSU TBI-ID in practice. Structural equation modeling will be used to determine whether provider characteristics predict TBI screening intentions, and whether intentions mediate actual TBI screening behaviors. We will then test whether feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of the OSU TBI-ID moderates the relationship between intentions and TBI screening behaviors. In Phase II (qualitative), we will develop an interview guide using results from Phase I and will conduct semi-structured interviews with providers (N = 20) to assess contextual determinants of TBI screening adoption. Qualitative data will be thematically analyzed using sensitizing concepts from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and integrated with the quantitative results using a joint display. DISCUSSION: This mixed methods study capitalizes on two theory-driven hypotheses bridging proximal (e.g., screening intent) to distal (actual behaviors) implementation outcomes and will contextualize these results qualitatively to advance our understanding about why TBI screening adoption has failed to translate to the behavioral healthcare context. Results of this study will offer insights into what is driving TBI screening adoption so that implementation strategies can be selected with greater precision to improve the adoption, sustainment, and scale-up of TBI screening in behavioral healthcare.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityBehavioral health treatmentCFIRDiffusion of innovationsFeasibilityMixed methodsOSU TBI-IDTBI screeningTheory of planned behaviorTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID35164885
PMCPMC8842803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.