ArticleImplementation research and practice
Understanding implementation completion of tailored motivational interviewing in multidisciplinary adolescent HIV clinics.
Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Young Adult Centered Healthforce Training (YACHT) Program to Increase HIV Testing and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Referrals Among Young Sexual Minority Men in Florida: Protocol for a Type 2 Implementation-Effectiveness Hybrid Trial With a Stepped Wedge Design.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Relations between provider adherence to a tailored motivational intervention protocol and competence in motivational interviewing.Patient education and counseling · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Understanding the barriers and facilitators of implementation completion is critical to determining why some implementation efforts fail and some succeed. Such studies provide the foundation for developing further strategies to support implementation completion when scaling up evidence-based practices (EBPs) such as Motivational Interviewing. Method: This mixed-methods study utilized the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework in an iterative analytic design to compare adolescent HIV clinics that demonstrated either high or low implementation completion in the context of a hybrid Type III trial of tailored motivational interviewing. Ten clinics were assigned to one of three completion categories (high, medium, and low) based on percentage of staff who adhered to three components of implementation strategies. Comparative analysis of staff qualitative interviews compared and contrasted the three high-completion clinics with the three low-completion clinics. Results: Results suggested several factors that distinguished high-completion clinics compared to low-completion clinics including optimism, problem-solving barriers, leadership, and staff stress and turnover. Conclusions: Implementation strategies targeting these factors can be added to EBP implementation packages to improve implementation success. Plain Language Summary: While studies have begun to address adherence to intervention techniques, this is one of the first studies to address organizational adherence to implementation strategies. Youth HIV providers from different disciplines completed interviews about critical factors in both the inner and outer context that can support or hinder an organization's adherence to implementation strategies. Compared to less adherent clinics, more adherent clinics reported more optimism, problem-solving, and leadership strengths and less staff stress and turnover. Implementation strategies addressing these factors could be added to implementation packages to improve implementation success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.