Skip to content

Evaluation of Peer Specialists on VA PACTs

Program Evaluation of Peer Specialists on VA PACTS: A Quality Improvement Project (QUE 15-289)

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02732600
Acronym
Peers on PACT
Enrollment
5616
Registered
2016-04-08
Start date
2016-01-01
Completion date
2019-10-31
Last updated
2023-07-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Mental Illness, Physical Illness

Keywords

Veterans, Veterans Health, Patient Compliance, Primary Health Care, Health Care Providers, Health Promotion

Brief summary

In August 2014, the White House issued an Executive Action mandating that 25 VA medical centers place Peer Specialists (Veterans recovered from mental illness who are trained to support other Veterans with mental illness) on Primary Care Teams. Research shows that the success of adding new staff to existing teams can be improved by outside aid and facilitation. This quality improvement project will evaluate whether providing expanded support to half of the Primary Care Teams will lead to better outcomes when compared with teams that do not get extra support.

Detailed description

Peer Specialists are individuals with mental illness currently deployed to serve Veterans in specialty mental health clinics based upon their lived experiences. Peer Specialist delivered interventions have been shown to improve patient activation in multiple studies. In August 2014, the White House issued an Executive Action mandating that 25 VA medical centers pilot the deployment of Peer Specialists in their Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs). This project expands upon this nationally mandated Peer Specialist pilot with the integration of a cluster randomized implementation trial. This quality improvement project will evaluate the impact of facilitated implementation vs. standard implementation to support on the deployment of Peer Specialists in PACTs. The 25 sites will be divided into three cohorts (n=8,8,9). Each cohort will begin over three successive six-month blocks beginning in early 2016. Within each cohort, sites will be randomized to receive either facilitated or standard implementation. Facilitated Implementation sites will receive one year of support based on the i-PARIHS implementation model which includes training, implementation planning, ongoing external facilitation, feedback and consultation. Standard Implementation sites will receive written guidance and limited consultation by the investigators' team. The investigators will compare the groups on 1) the percent of their target population that actually received PS services; 2) ratings on PS workload productivity including ; 3) Peer Implementation and Services scores; 4) assessment of Veteran's change over time on the outcome variables of satisfaction, activation, and functioning ; 5) qualitative analysis of how well PSs were deployed and their impact.

Interventions

OTHERFacilitated Implementation

Facilitated Implementation sites will receive one year of support based on the i-PARIHS implementation model which includes training, implementation planning, ongoing external facilitation, feedback and consultation

Sponsors

US Department of Veterans Affairs
CollaboratorFED
VA Office of Research and Development
Lead SponsorFED

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Included sites must be VA PACT Primary Care Health teams with existing Peer Specialists who are able to include an existing Peer Specialist on their team for a minimum of 10 hours per week for one year

Exclusion criteria

* Non VA PACT teams, VA sites without an existing Peer Specialists, and VA PACT primary care teams that cannot commit a Peer Specialist to Primary Care for a minimum of 10 hours per week are excluded

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Patient Activation Measure ChangeBaseline, 6 months, 1 yearThe Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 13-item survey that measures an individual's perceived ability to manage his or her illness and health behaviors and act as an effective patient. It has been shown to be reliable, valid, sensitive to change and correlates with measures of improved self-management. Scores for this outcome range from Zero to One Hundred with higher scores indicating higher levels of patient activation (better outcome).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Peer Fidelity Measure6 months, 1 yearThe Peer Fidelity Measure assesses: a) peer specialist services and b) peer specialist implementation. The first part has 5 domains of peer services critical to the VA's peer support model (e.g., being a role model that recovery is possible; share personal recovery story). The second has 7 domains of implementation factors shown to either help or hinder PS deployment (e.g., role clarity, support for PS at higher organizational levels, regular supervision). Each domain has 1-2 questions (responses ranging from 1= not at all through 5=Very much with higher scores indicating higher fidelity. Min Value=1 and Max value =5. The Peer Fidelity Measure will be administered to both Peer Specialists and their supervisors. Analyses looked at discrepancies (difference in difference) between Peer Specialists and their Supervisors at each time point. Min discrepancy score is -4 and Max discrepancy score is 4. (calculated as Peer Specialist minus Peer Supervisor score)
The Satisfaction Index-Mental HealthBaseline, 6 months, 1 yearThe Satisfaction Index-Mental Health is a 12-item, unidimensional measure of patient satisfaction with care. It has been used with Veteran populations and has been shown to be valid, reliable, and sensitive to change in a sample of Veterans with mental illnesses being treated in primary care settings. It will be administered to Veterans who receive care from the Peer Specialists involved in the project. Minimum score is 12 and the maximum score is 72; higher scores mean more satisfaction.
Average Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (First Year Only)1st year onlySee Variable 5 above for details about adjustment. Since this variable this is a Veteran level variable, a General Linear Mixed Model (GSLMM) was used with PS specified as a random effect and Veteran age, race and gender. N's are number of Veterans
Team Development MeasureBaseline, 6 months, 1 yearThe Team Development Measure is a 31 item self-report survey that evaluates the degree to which a team has and uses the components needed for highly effective teamwork including cohesiveness, communication, role clarity, and goals and means clarity. All components min scores are zero % and maximum is 100%; higher percentages mean positive responses.
Average Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (Across Both Years)across both yearsSee Variable 5 above for details about adjustment. Since this variable this is a Veteran level variable, a General Linear Mixed Model (GSLMM) was used with PS specified as a random effect and Veteran age, race and gender. N's are number of Veterans
Average Total Number of Services Provided-Adjusted (First Year Only and Across Both Years)one year and across both yearsThis adjusted workload variables took into consideration both the employment period (many PSs did not start immediately or may have left prior to the end of the 2 years) and weekly hours worked (varying from one hour to 40 hours per week). Visits during each PS's employment period were divided by the total number of hours worked, then multiplied by 40 to calculate adjusted values for operationalization above. Because this variable was significantly skewed, we used a log transformation to improve their distributional properties. Differences between intervention conditions were then compared with a series of Analyses of Covariance models with age, gender and race as covariates. Since these variables are measured at the PS level, the covariates were the average across the Veterans sesn by each PS (mean age, percent White and percent male). N's are number of Veterans
Time to First Servicevariable from baseline to time of first service delivered by Peer SpecialistsThis variable represents count of days from time study at each site started (baseline) until first service was delivered.
Number of Unique Veterans Seen (Adjusted for Employment Period and Hours Worked Per Week)one year, across two yearsThis adjusted workload variables took into consideration both the employment period (many PSs did not start immediately or may have left prior to the end of the 2 years) and weekly hours worked (varying from one hour to 40 hours per week). Visits during each PS's employment period were divided by the total number of hours worked, then multiplied by 40 to calculate adjusted values for operationalization above. Because this variable was significantly skewed, we used a log transformation to improve their distributional properties. Differences between intervention conditions were then compared with a series of Analyses of Covariance models with age, gender and race as covariates. Since these variables are measured at the PS level, the covariates were the average across the Veterans sesn by each PS (mean age, percent White and percent male). N's are number of Veterans

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

numbers of participants is presented at three time points: 1. Baseline 2. 6-months, and 3. 1-year

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Standard Implementation
Standard Implementation sites will receive written guidance and limited consultation by the investigators' team.
194
Facilitated Implementation
Facilitated Implementation sites will receive one year of support based on the i-PARIHS implementation model which includes training, implementation planning, ongoing external facilitation, feedback and consultation. Facilitated Implementation: Facilitated Implementation sites will receive one year of support based on the i-PARIHS implementation model which includes training, implementation planning, ongoing external facilitation, feedback and consultation
221
Total415

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicFacilitated ImplementationTotalStandard Implementation
Age, Continuous61.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.8
61.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.5
61.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.7
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
64 Participants101 Participants37 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
11 Participants17 Participants6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
121 Participants230 Participants109 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
17 Participants45 Participants28 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
186 Participants318 Participants132 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 00 / 0
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 00 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 00 / 0

Outcome results

Primary

Patient Activation Measure Change

The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 13-item survey that measures an individual's perceived ability to manage his or her illness and health behaviors and act as an effective patient. It has been shown to be reliable, valid, sensitive to change and correlates with measures of improved self-management. Scores for this outcome range from Zero to One Hundred with higher scores indicating higher levels of patient activation (better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 1 year

Population: Comparison across two conditions on PAM Total Score - PAM Total Score (0-100)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationPatient Activation Measure ChangeBaseline-PAM Total41.0 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.9
Standard ImplementationPatient Activation Measure Change6-Month-PAM Total39.9 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.6
Standard ImplementationPatient Activation Measure Change1-year-PAM Total39.8 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.2
Facilitated ImplementationPatient Activation Measure ChangeBaseline-PAM Total41.6 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.2
Facilitated ImplementationPatient Activation Measure Change6-Month-PAM Total40.6 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.7
Facilitated ImplementationPatient Activation Measure Change1-year-PAM Total40.8 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.5
Comparison: Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 yearp-value: 0.3995% CI: [-0.66, 1.68]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 yearp-value: 0.3595% CI: [-0.75, 2.06]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 yearp-value: 0.2195% CI: [-0.57, 2.6]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Average Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (Across Both Years)

See Variable 5 above for details about adjustment. Since this variable this is a Veteran level variable, a General Linear Mixed Model (GSLMM) was used with PS specified as a random effect and Veteran age, race and gender. N's are number of Veterans

Time frame: across both years

Population: Number of Visits per Veteran

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationAverage Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (Across Both Years)2.2 Count of VisitsStandard Deviation 3
Facilitated ImplementationAverage Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (Across Both Years)3.2 Count of VisitsStandard Deviation 5.6
p-value: 0.000195% CI: [0.68, 1.37]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Average Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (First Year Only)

See Variable 5 above for details about adjustment. Since this variable this is a Veteran level variable, a General Linear Mixed Model (GSLMM) was used with PS specified as a random effect and Veteran age, race and gender. N's are number of Veterans

Time frame: 1st year only

Population: number of visits per Veteran

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationAverage Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (First Year Only)2.0 Count of VisitsStandard Deviation 2.1
Facilitated ImplementationAverage Number of Visits Per Veteran Per Peer Specialist-Adjusted (First Year Only)2.6 Count of VisitsStandard Deviation 3.6
p-value: 0.00195% CI: [0.28, 0.92]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Average Total Number of Services Provided-Adjusted (First Year Only and Across Both Years)

This adjusted workload variables took into consideration both the employment period (many PSs did not start immediately or may have left prior to the end of the 2 years) and weekly hours worked (varying from one hour to 40 hours per week). Visits during each PS's employment period were divided by the total number of hours worked, then multiplied by 40 to calculate adjusted values for operationalization above. Because this variable was significantly skewed, we used a log transformation to improve their distributional properties. Differences between intervention conditions were then compared with a series of Analyses of Covariance models with age, gender and race as covariates. Since these variables are measured at the PS level, the covariates were the average across the Veterans sesn by each PS (mean age, percent White and percent male). N's are number of Veterans

Time frame: one year and across both years

Population: Services Provided by each Peer Specialist

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationAverage Total Number of Services Provided-Adjusted (First Year Only and Across Both Years)1st Year Only2.7 Count of servicesStandard Deviation 2.7
Standard ImplementationAverage Total Number of Services Provided-Adjusted (First Year Only and Across Both Years)Across Both Years9.8 Count of servicesStandard Deviation 8.7
Facilitated ImplementationAverage Total Number of Services Provided-Adjusted (First Year Only and Across Both Years)1st Year Only8.4 Count of servicesStandard Deviation 8.7
Facilitated ImplementationAverage Total Number of Services Provided-Adjusted (First Year Only and Across Both Years)Across Both Years12.4 Count of servicesStandard Deviation 8.7
p-value: 0.0295% CI: [1.46, 9.96]t-test, 2 sided
p-value: 0.3895% CI: [-3.14, 8.54]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Number of Unique Veterans Seen (Adjusted for Employment Period and Hours Worked Per Week)

This adjusted workload variables took into consideration both the employment period (many PSs did not start immediately or may have left prior to the end of the 2 years) and weekly hours worked (varying from one hour to 40 hours per week). Visits during each PS's employment period were divided by the total number of hours worked, then multiplied by 40 to calculate adjusted values for operationalization above. Because this variable was significantly skewed, we used a log transformation to improve their distributional properties. Differences between intervention conditions were then compared with a series of Analyses of Covariance models with age, gender and race as covariates. Since these variables are measured at the PS level, the covariates were the average across the Veterans sesn by each PS (mean age, percent White and percent male). N's are number of Veterans

Time frame: one year, across two years

Population: Unique Veteran encounters

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationNumber of Unique Veterans Seen (Adjusted for Employment Period and Hours Worked Per Week)1st year1.3 count of VeteransStandard Deviation 1.3
Standard ImplementationNumber of Unique Veterans Seen (Adjusted for Employment Period and Hours Worked Per Week)across both years5.8 count of VeteransStandard Deviation 8.5
Facilitated ImplementationNumber of Unique Veterans Seen (Adjusted for Employment Period and Hours Worked Per Week)1st year4.8 count of VeteransStandard Deviation 6.1
Facilitated ImplementationNumber of Unique Veterans Seen (Adjusted for Employment Period and Hours Worked Per Week)across both years6.0 count of VeteransStandard Deviation 5.8
p-value: 0.0295% CI: [0.56, 6.38]t-test, 2 sided
p-value: 0.9395% CI: [-4.67, 5.04]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Peer Fidelity Measure

The Peer Fidelity Measure assesses: a) peer specialist services and b) peer specialist implementation. The first part has 5 domains of peer services critical to the VA's peer support model (e.g., being a role model that recovery is possible; share personal recovery story). The second has 7 domains of implementation factors shown to either help or hinder PS deployment (e.g., role clarity, support for PS at higher organizational levels, regular supervision). Each domain has 1-2 questions (responses ranging from 1= not at all through 5=Very much with higher scores indicating higher fidelity. Min Value=1 and Max value =5. The Peer Fidelity Measure will be administered to both Peer Specialists and their supervisors. Analyses looked at discrepancies (difference in difference) between Peer Specialists and their Supervisors at each time point. Min discrepancy score is -4 and Max discrepancy score is 4. (calculated as Peer Specialist minus Peer Supervisor score)

Time frame: 6 months, 1 year

Population: 6 months and 1 year

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTeams Integration and Relationships 6-mo-0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCollaborate-Promoting Health 6-mo0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePeer Specialist as Liaison 6-mo-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureProvides Info on Services 6 mo-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureSymptoms and Medications 6-mo0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTraining and Preparation 6-mo0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCore Peer Specialist 6-moFunctions0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.3
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureLeadership Support 6-mo0.01 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureFits to Experience and Needs 6-mo-0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureRole Clarity 6-mo-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureResources 6-mo-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePerformance Reviews 6-mo-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCore PS functions 1-yr0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCollaborate on Promoting Health 1 year0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.1
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePeer Specialist as Liaison 1 year0.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity Measureprovides info on services 1 year0.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureSymptoms and Medication 1 year0.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTraining and Preparation 1 year0.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTeam Integration and relationships 1 year1.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.4
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureLeadership Support 1 year2.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureFit to experience and need 1 year0.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureRole Clarity 1 year1.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureResources-0.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Standard ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePerformance Review 1 year0.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.4
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureResources-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCore Peer Specialist 6-moFunctions0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCore PS functions 1-yr-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.41
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCollaborate-Promoting Health 6-mo0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTeam Integration and relationships 1 year-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePeer Specialist as Liaison 6-mo1.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureCollaborate on Promoting Health 1 year-0.01 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureProvides Info on Services 6 mo0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureRole Clarity 1 year-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureSymptoms and Medications 6-mo1.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePeer Specialist as Liaison 1 year-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTraining and Preparation 6-mo0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureLeadership Support 1 year0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTeams Integration and Relationships 6-mo0.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.5
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity Measureprovides info on services 1 year-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureLeadership Support 6-mo-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePerformance Review 1 year-0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureFits to Experience and Needs 6-mo-0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.1
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureSymptoms and Medication 1 year-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.1
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureRole Clarity 6-mo0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureFit to experience and need 1 year-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureResources 6-mo0.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.6
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasureTraining and Preparation 1 year-0.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Facilitated ImplementationPeer Fidelity MeasurePerformance Reviews 6-mo-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.3
Comparison: t test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 6 monthsp-value: 0.09895% CI: [-0.09, 1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on COLLABORATION at 6 monthsp-value: 0.28295% CI: [-0.43, 1.43]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on PEER SPECIALIST AS LIAISON at 6 monthsp-value: 0.0695% CI: [-0.05, 2.29]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on PROVIDES INFO ON SERVICES at 6 monthsp-value: 0.3495% CI: [0.07, 1.59]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Symptoms and Medication at 6-monthsp-value: 0.3495% CI: [-0.94, 2.62]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 6-monthsp-value: 0.6695% CI: [-1.03, 1.5]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 6 Monthsp-value: 0.1595% CI: [-0.36, 2.16]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 6-monthsp-value: 0.5995% CI: [-1.01, 0.59]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 6 monthsp-value: 0.9595% CI: [-1.77, 1.68]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 6 monthsp-value: 0.3295% CI: [-0.58, 1.68]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across both groups on Resources at 6 monthsp-value: 0.2795% CI: [-0.6, 2.04]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Performance Reviews at 6 monthsp-value: 0.9395% CI: [-1.71, 1.85]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 1 yearp-value: 0.1595% CI: [-1.45, -0.005]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Collaboration at 1 yearp-value: 0.0495% CI: [-1.7, 0.32]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Peer Specialists as Liaison at 1 yearp-value: 0.0895% CI: [-2.07, 0.17]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Provides Info on Services at 1 yearp-value: 0.2695% CI: [-0.58, 0.18]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison between groups on Symptoms and Medication at 1 yearp-value: 0.6195% CI: [-4.53, 2.83]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 1 yearp-value: 0.395% CI: [-2.87, 1.01]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 1 yearp-value: 0.00495% CI: [-2.08, -0.52]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 1 yearp-value: 0.0195% CI: [-4.2, -0.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 1 yearp-value: 0.995% CI: [-24.1, 23.5]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 1 yearp-value: 0.0695% CI: [-3.02, 0.12]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison across groups on Resources at 1 yearp-value: 0.7195% CI: [-0.97, 1.37]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test comparison on Performance Reviews at 1 yearp-value: 0.4195% CI: [-5.03, 2.23]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Team Development Measure

The Team Development Measure is a 31 item self-report survey that evaluates the degree to which a team has and uses the components needed for highly effective teamwork including cohesiveness, communication, role clarity, and goals and means clarity. All components min scores are zero % and maximum is 100%; higher percentages mean positive responses.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 1 year

Population: number of site based leadership and supervisors who responded

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationTeam Development Measurecohesiveness-Baseline91.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.5
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCommunication Baseline85.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.4
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureRole Clarity Baseline76.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.6
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureGoals Baseline67.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 38.9
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCohesiveness 6 month89.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.8
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCommunication 6 month84.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.9
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureRole Clarity 6 months77.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 31.8
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureGoals 6 months74.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.6
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCohesiveness 1 year85.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 35
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCommunication 1 year80.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.1
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureRole Clarity 1 year70.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 40.6
Standard ImplementationTeam Development MeasureGoals 1 year77.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.9
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureRole Clarity 1 year82.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.5
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development Measurecohesiveness-Baseline96.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.3
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureRole Clarity 6 months83.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.3
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCommunication Baseline93.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.5
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCommunication 1 year83.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.9
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureRole Clarity Baseline84.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.3
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureGoals 6 months77.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.8
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureGoals Baseline82.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 29.9
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureGoals 1 year87.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.7
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCohesiveness 6 month89.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.5
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCohesiveness 1 year94.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.2
Facilitated ImplementationTeam Development MeasureCommunication 6 month86.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.9
Comparison: t-test used to compare group differences in Cohesiveness at BASELINEp-value: 0.15695% CI: [-2.2, 13.48]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test to compare group means on Communication at BASELINEp-value: 0.18295% CI: [-3.85, 19.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test to compare group differences on Role Clarity at BASELINEp-value: 0.23495% CI: [-5.74, 22.57]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test to compare group values on Goals at Baselinep-value: 0.14995% CI: [-5.22, 33.5]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of differences between groups on Cohesiveness at 6-Monthsp-value: 0.94795% CI: [-14.7, 13.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of groups differences on Communication at 6 Monthsp-value: 0.8795% CI: [-15.6, 18.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 6 monthsp-value: 0.47895% CI: [-11.26, 23.63]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of group differences on Goals at 6 Monthsp-value: 0.77395% CI: [-13.35, 17.83]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of group differences on Cohesiveness at 1yearp-value: 0.49895% CI: [-20.4, 38.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of group differences on Communication at 1 yearp-value: 0.7895% CI: [-20.3, 26.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 1 yearp-value: 0.47495% CI: [-23.19, 46.11]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: t-test of group differences on Goals at 1 yearp-value: 0.26795% CI: [-8.21, 28.21]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

The Satisfaction Index-Mental Health

The Satisfaction Index-Mental Health is a 12-item, unidimensional measure of patient satisfaction with care. It has been used with Veteran populations and has been shown to be valid, reliable, and sensitive to change in a sample of Veterans with mental illnesses being treated in primary care settings. It will be administered to Veterans who receive care from the Peer Specialists involved in the project. Minimum score is 12 and the maximum score is 72; higher scores mean more satisfaction.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months, 1 year

Population: Veterans responding to survey

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationThe Satisfaction Index-Mental HealthBaseline47.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.1
Standard ImplementationThe Satisfaction Index-Mental Health6-months49.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.7
Standard ImplementationThe Satisfaction Index-Mental Health1-year50.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13
Facilitated ImplementationThe Satisfaction Index-Mental HealthBaseline51.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.5
Facilitated ImplementationThe Satisfaction Index-Mental Health6-months52.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.6
Facilitated ImplementationThe Satisfaction Index-Mental Health1-year51.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.6
Comparison: Group Comparison at Baselinep-value: 0.00295% CI: [1.29, 5.88]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Group Comparison at 6 Monthsp-value: 0.195% CI: [-0.54, 5.78]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Group Comparison at 1 yearp-value: 0.7795% CI: [-3.06, 4.14]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Time to First Service

This variable represents count of days from time study at each site started (baseline) until first service was delivered.

Time frame: variable from baseline to time of first service delivered by Peer Specialists

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Standard ImplementationTime to First Service188.2 Number of DaysStandard Deviation 123.4
Facilitated ImplementationTime to First Service88.7 Number of DaysStandard Deviation 65
p-value: 0.02795% CI: [-186.2, -12.66]t-test, 2 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 10, 2026