Skip to content

Minimum Intervention to Maintain a Postpartum Depression Prevention Program in Clinics Serving Low-income Women

Implementing to Sustain: Determining the Minimum Necessary Intervention to Maintain a Postpartum Depression Prevention Program (ROSE) in Clinics Providing Prenatal Services to Low-income Women

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03267563
Acronym
ROSE
Enrollment
160
Registered
2017-08-30
Start date
2018-06-12
Completion date
2023-12-31
Last updated
2026-04-15

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

Conditions

Depression, Postpartum

Keywords

prevention, implementation, sustainment, perinatal, pregnancy, postpartum

Brief summary

Postpartum depression (PPD) is common and can have lasting consequences for mother and child. ROSE is an intervention to prevent PPD, delivered during pregnancy in outpatient prenatal settings. ROSE has been found to significantly reduce cases of PPD in multiple randomized trials in community prenatal settings with racially and ethnically diverse low-income pregnant women. Requests for ROSE training and recent policy changes supporting payment for comprehensive perinatal services to underserved populations suggest a context ripe for embedding ROSE in prenatal clinics long-term. Given the need for return on investment studies about sustainment efforts, we propose a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized (SMART) Trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepwise approach to sustainment of ROSE in 90 outpatient clinics providing prenatal care to pregnant women on public assistance in 6 U.S. states. In Year 1, all clinics will receive enhanced implementation as usual (EIAU; initial training + tools for sustainment). At the first time at which a clinic is determined to be at risk for failure to sustain (i.e., at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 months), that clinic will be randomized to receive either: (1) no additional implementation support (i.e., EIAU only), or (2) low-intensity coaching and feedback (LICF). If clinics receiving LICF are still found to be at risk at subsequent assessments, they will be randomized to either (1) EIAU + LICF only, or (2) high-intensity coaching and feedback (HICF). Additional study follow-up interviews will occur at 18, 24, and 30 months, but no implementation intervention will occur after 18 months. Outcomes include: 1. Sustainment of core program elements at each time point and total length of time ROSE services were provided and were provided with at least moderate fidelity. 2. Health impact (PPD rates over time at each clinic) and reach. 3. ROI (costs, cost-offsets, and cost-effectiveness) of each sustainment step. Hypothesized mechanisms include sustainment of clinical and organizational capacity to deliver core elements, and engagement/ownership. The study will also examine predictors, tailoring variables, and implementation processes to determine which kinds of clinics need which level of sustainment support and when. To our knowledge, this study will be the first randomized trial evaluating the ROI of a stepped approach to sustainment, a critical unanswered question in implementation science.

Detailed description

A recent expert consensus report concluded that, "Little is known about how well or under what conditions health innovations are sustained and their gains maintained once they are put into practice. Implementation science typically focuses on uptake by early adopters. The later-stage challenges of sustaining evidence-supported interventions receive too little attention." This report placed high priority on conducting return on investment (ROI) studies to determine how much is gained when effective programs are sustained, and cost-benefit trade-offs for effort required to sustain.1 Information is especially needed for preventive behavioral health interventions for adults in outpatient medical (e.g., primary care; OBGYN) settings. Postpartum depression (PPD) is common and can have serious and lasting consequences for mother and child, including maternal increased risk for suicide, compromised functional status, and adverse infant developmental outcomes. Prevalence of PPD is \ 13% in the 12 weeks after childbirth, with rates up to 50% among low-income women, who are especially vulnerable to the consequences of PPD. Outpatient clinics offering prenatal care are an opportune place to deliver PPD prevention services because most women will visit while pregnant. Recent guidelines suggest that prenatal clinics should screen for PPD after birth and refer once it is identified. Unfortunately, prenatal clinics do not routinely do anything to prevent PPD from occurring. The ROSE Program (Reach Out, Stay Strong, Essentials for mothers of newborns) is a small-group intervention to prevent PPD that is delivered during pregnancy in outpatient prenatal settings. ROSE is the only PPD preventative intervention that (1) has been found to significantly reduce cases of PPD in multiple randomized trials, and (2) has been tested in community prenatal settings with racially and ethnically diverse low income pregnant women. ROSE consists of four 90-minute group sessions and a 50-minute individual booster session after delivery. Requests for ROSE training in Philadelphia and nationwide in Japan, and recent policy changes supporting payment for comprehensive perinatal services (including behavioral health care) to underserved populations all suggest a context ripe for embedding ROSE in prenatal clinics long-term. Given the need for ROI studies about sustainment efforts and that ROSE is well-positioned for implementation and sustainment research, we propose a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized (SMART) Trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepwise approach to sustainment of ROSE in 90 outpatient clinics providing prenatal care to pregnant women on public assistance accross the US. Our conceptual framework comes from RE-AIM and a review on sustainment by Co-I Wiltsey-Stirman,3 with sustainment strategies based on the Replicating Effective Programs (REP) framework. All clinics will receive enhanced implementation as usual (EIAU; initial training + tools for sustainment). Clinics will be assessed using surveys and qualitative interviews 9 times over 2.5 years after receiving EIAU. Clinics at risk for failure to sustain operationally (defined as no ROSE intervention in 3 months and none planned) and/or clinically (defined as low fidelity to ROSE core elements) will be randomized to receive additional sustainment support for up to 18 months after baseline. At the first time period at which a clinic is determined to be at risk (i.e., at 3, 6, 9, 12, or 15 months), that clinic will be randomized to receive either: (1) no additional implementation support (EIAU only), or (2) EIAU plus low-intensity (every 3 months) coaching and feedback (LICF). If clinics receiving LICF are still at risk at subsequent monitoring periods, they will be randomized to (1) EIAU + LICF only, or (2) EIAU + LICF + high-intensity (monthly) coaching and feedback (HICF). Additional study follow-up interviews will occur at 18, 24, and 30 months, but no implementation intervention will occur after 18 months. We will assess costs and benefits of sustainment strategies. Aims are to: Compare effectiveness of each sustainment step for the following final and proximal OUTCOMES: 1. Sustainment of core program elements at each time point, and total length of time in weeks that: (i) any ROSE services were provided, and (ii) were provided with adequate fidelity to core elements (primary). 2. Health impact (e.g., PPD rates over time at each clinic) and reach (number of patients enrolled in and completing the ROSE program). 3. Return on Investment (costs and cost-effectiveness of each sustainment step). 4. Hypothesized mechanisms include sustainment of: (a) clinical and organizational capacity to deliver core elements, and (b) a sense of engagement/ownership by key clinic staff, Examine predictors and processes to determine which kinds of clinics need which level of support. 5. Explore which clinic characteristics (e.g., organizational and state policy contexts) and hypothesized mechanisms (Aim 4) are associated with best sustainment to determine tailoring variables for choosing/sequencing EIAU, LICF, HICF in the future. 6. Document implementation/sustainment effort processes, their timing relative to desired outcomes, critical incidents to explore factors most related to sustainment after accounting for hypothesized mechanisms. To our knowledge, this study will be the first randomized trial evaluating the ROI of a stepped approach to sustainment, a critical unanswered question in implementation science. The study will also examine a set of strategies to promote sustainment of an effective PPD prevention intervention for low-income women, reducing negative consequences for mother and child. The proposal directly addresses the goal of PAR-16-238 to conduct longitudinal studies on "factors that contribute to the sustainability of evidence-based interventions," to test strategies to improve quality of care among underserved populations, examine mediators and moderators, and examine cost-effectiveness or other economic outcomes. Thus, the study will advance implementation science, knowledge of implementation science mechanisms, and clinical care for an at-risk population.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALEIAU

Enhanced implementation as usual consists of initial training and problem-solving plus planning for sustainment,

BEHAVIORALLICF

Enhanced implementation plus low intensity will have received initial training and problem-solving plus planning for sustainment and after that every 3 months will receive one clinical and one operational telephone "booster" meeting.

BEHAVIORALHICF

Enhanced implementation plus high intensity will receive will receive everything that the clinics in LICF receive, but at a higher intensity.

Sponsors

Michigan State University
Lead SponsorOTHER
Butler Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Allegheny Singer Research Institute (also known as Allegheny Health Network Research Institute)
CollaboratorOTHER
Palo Alto Veterans Institute for Research
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Rochester
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Massachusetts, Worcester
CollaboratorOTHER
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
CollaboratorOTHER
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
CollaboratorNIH

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design. Three interventions were sequenced.

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

Study enrollment began with enrollment of clinics. Inclusion criteria for clinics were: 1. outpatient, 2. provide prenatal services, 3. estimate at least 30% of their pregnant patients received some kind of public assistance (such as federal or state cash assistance, food stamps, subsidized housing, and/or health insurance such as Medicaid), 4. have at least 3 new pregnant people per month on average (i.e., enough patient flow to run ROSE), and 5. agree to study procedures. Inclusion criteria were for the clinic itself; once the clinic was included, any pregnant person within the agency could receive ROSE. Participants were clinic personnel, and they were enrolled within clinic. Their inclusion criteria were: 1. age 18 or older 2. someone chosen by the agency to respond to quarterly survey questions about clinical delivery of ROSE (the "clinical respondent"); 3. someone chosen by the agency to respond to quarterly surveys about operational (billing, scheduling) aspects of ROSE delivery (the "operational respondent," which could be the same or a different person than the "clinical respondent"); 4. all ROSE facilitators for the agency (who completed self-rated ROSE adherence forms).

Exclusion criteria

* None

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion Sustainment of Core Program ElementsAverage over months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24, and 30 after baselineProportion sustainment of ROSE's core program elements, assessed using the ROSE Session-by-Session Adherence Scale, was defined as the mean proportion of core elements delivered that should have been delivered at each ROSE session over the time period (zero if no sessions were completed). Potential range is 0 to 1, higher score reflects better outcome.
Number of Months of Sustained ROSE DeliverySummary of total number of months over 30 month study period.Number of months when ROSE was delivered was tracked using calendar method. Potential range is 0 to 30 months, higher score reflects better outcome.
Number of Months of Sustained ROSE Delivery With FidelitySummary of total number of months over 30 month study period.Number of months when ROSE was delivered with fidelity was tracked using calendar method. Potential range is 0 to 30 months, higher score reflects better outcome.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Annualized Percent of Pregnant People Attending at Least One ROSE Session Over 30 MonthsSummary over 30 month study period.Surveys at each time point included questions for the clinic to report the number of people who attended at least one ROSE session and the number served by the clinic in the past 12 months. Total numbers attending ROSE over 30 months were annualized (divided by 2.5), then divided by number of pregnant people served in the 12 months prior to baseline and multiplied by 100% to estimate percent of pregnant patients at each agency who received ROSE over 30 months. Potential range is 0 to 100 percent. Higher score reflects better outcome.
Annualized Percent of Pregnant People Attending at Least Three ROSE Sessions (of Five) Over 30 MonthsSummary over 30 month study period.Surveys at each time point included questions for the clinic to report the number of people who attended at least three ROSE sessions and the number served by the clinic in the past 12 months. Total numbers attending at least three ROSE sessions over 30 months were annualized (divided by 2.5), then divided by number of pregnant people served in the 12 months prior to baseline and multiplied by 100% to estimate percent of pregnant patients at each agency who received at least three sessions of ROSE over 30 months. Potential range is 0 to 100 percent. Higher score reflects better outcome.

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORJennifer E Johnson, Ph.D.

Michigan State University

STUDY_DIRECTORRaven Miller, M.A.

Michigan State University

Baseline characteristics

Characteristic
Age, Continuous42.82 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.65
Clinic FQHC status
No
64 Participants
Clinic FQHC status
Yes
6 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
23 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
102 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
17 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
9 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
38 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
85 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
2 participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex
Female
1 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex
Male
0 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex
Unknown
1 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 900 / 460 / 24
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 900 / 460 / 24
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 900 / 460 / 24

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Apr 16, 2026