Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804370›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2022

Primary aim results of a clustered SMART for developing a school-level, adaptive implementation strategy to support CBT delivery at high schools in Michigan.

Shawna N Smith, Daniel Almirall, Seo Youn Choi, Elizabeth Koschmann, Amy Rusch, Emily Bilek, Annalise Lane, James L Abelson, Daniel Eisenberg, Joseph A Himle and 3 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT03541317 (Improving Student Mental Health), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT03541317 nacompletednot on this map

Improving Student Mental Health: Adaptive School-based Implementation of CBT

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MichiganRan2018 to 2020Enrolled1,329ConditionsDepression, AnxietyArmsStage 1 Strategy: REP, Stage 1 Strategy: REP + Coaching, Stage 2 Strategy: Augment with Facilitation, Stage 2 Strategy: No augmentation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shawna N SmithDepartment of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, SPH II, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. shawnana@umich.edu.
Daniel AlmirallSurvey Research Center, Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Seo Youn ChoiDepartment of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, SPH II, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Elizabeth KoschmannDepartment of Psychiatry, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Amy RuschDepartment of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, SPH II, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3647-6946
Emily BilekDepartment of Psychiatry, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Annalise LaneDepartment of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, SPH II, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
James L AbelsonDepartment of Psychiatry, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Daniel EisenbergDepartment of Health Policy and Management, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA.
Joseph A HimleDepartment of Psychiatry, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Kate D FitzgeraldDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City, USA.
Celeste LiebrechtDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Amy M KilbourneDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
University of Michigan · USMichigan Medicine · USColumbia University · USUCLA Health · US

Funding

Pilot and Mentoring CoreP50DA054039 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LINDA M COLLINS, SUSAN A MURPHY · 2021 to 2026
$18.2M
Novel Methods for Intensive Longitudinal Data in SMART Studies of Drug Abuse and HIVR01DA039901 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ALMIRALL, DANIEL, NAHUM-SHANI, INBAL BILLIE · 2015 to 2024
$5.4M
Improving Student Mental Health: Adaptive Implementation of School-based CBTR01MH114203 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI KILBOURNE, AMY M · 2017 to 2021
$3.6M
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA054039NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA039901NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH114203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchools increasingly provide mental health services to students, but often lack access to implementation strategies to support school-based (and school professional [SP]) delivery of evidence-based practices. Given substantial heterogeneity in implementation barriers across schools, development of adaptive implementation strategies that guide which implementation strategies to provide to which schools and when may be necessary to support scale-up.

methodsA clustered, sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) of high schools across Michigan was used to inform the development of a school-level adaptive implementation strategy for supporting SP-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). All schools were first provided with implementation support informed by Replicating Effective Programs (REP) and then were randomized to add in-person Coaching or not (phase 1). After 8 weeks, schools were assessed for response based on SP-reported frequency of CBT delivered to students and/or barriers reported. Responder schools continued with phase 1 implementation strategies. Slower-responder schools (not providing ≥ 3 CBT components to ≥10 students or >2 organizational barriers identified) were re-randomized to add Facilitation to current support or not (phase 2). The primary aim hypothesis was that SPs at schools receiving the REP + Coaching + Facilitation adaptive implementation strategy would deliver more CBT sessions than SPs at schools receiving REP alone. Secondary aims compared four implementation strategies (Coaching vs no Coaching × Facilitation vs no Facilitation) on CBT sessions delivered, including by type (group, brief and full individual). Analyses used a marginal, weighted least squares approach developed for clustered SMARTs.

resultsSPs (n = 169) at 94 high schools entered the study. N = 83 schools (88%) were slower-responders after phase 1. Contrary to the primary aim hypothesis, there was no evidence of a significant difference in CBT sessions delivered between REP + Coaching + Facilitation and REP alone (111.4 vs. 121.1 average total CBT sessions; p = 0.63). In secondary analyses, the adaptive strategy that offered REP + Facilitation resulted in the highest average CBT delivery (154.1 sessions) and the non-adaptive strategy offering REP + Coaching the lowest (94.5 sessions).

conclusionsThe most effective strategy in terms of average SP-reported CBT delivery is the adaptive implementation strategy that (i) begins with REP, (ii) augments with Facilitation for slower-responder schools (schools where SPs identified organizational barriers or struggled to deliver CBT), and (iii) stays the course with REP for responder schools.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541317 , May 30, 2018.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyMental Health ServicesHumansMichiganSchoolsAdaptive implementation strategiesAdolescent mental healthCoachingCognitive behavioral therapyFacilitationMental healthSchools

Identifiers

PMID35804370
PMCPMC9264291
OpenAlexW4284891897

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.