Skip to content

Collaborating to Implement Cross-System Interventions in Child Welfare and Substance Use

Collaborating to Implement Cross-System Interventions in Child Welfare and Substance Use

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03931005
Enrollment
9
Registered
2019-04-29
Start date
2024-04-25
Completion date
2024-05-31
Last updated
2026-04-07

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

Conditions

Child Maltreatment, Implementation, Substance Use, System Fragmentation

Brief summary

As a result of the opiate crisis, child welfare agencies have experienced an increase in the number of children in foster care as parental substance use puts children at greater risk of maltreatment. To facilitate implementation of the Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Team (START) model, this study (1) identifies collaborative strategies associated with effective implementation and service outcomes given system and organizational context, (2) uses this evidence to specify strategies and develop a decision support guide to help agency leaders select collaborative strategies, and (3) assesses the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the decision support guide.

Detailed description

This is a multi-staged, mixed methods study that leverages a naturally occurring policy experiment in southern Ohio. In aim 1, we will examine the collaborative strategies associated with implementation and service outcomes, given the context with 17 counties engaged in the Ohio START pilot project. We will use a convergent mixed methods design, and integrate our qualitative and quantitative data using qualitative comparative analysis. For aim 2, we will specify the collaborative strategies and develop a decision support guide using the VA's model of implementation strategy development (diagnose barriers, and convene an expert panel to design strategies). For aim 3, we assess the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the decision support guide using a mixed methods design. In the quantitative phase, we will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of each strategy in the toolkit. Our second qualitative phase (which is dominant), will examine feasibility more in-depth by piloting the guide and conducting descriptive case studies with users.

Interventions

OTHERCollaboration Decision Support Guide

Electronic toolkit intended to help organizational leaders select partners and negotiate partnerships for implementation. This will contain: 1) a brief summary of collaboration approaches associated with implementation, 2) detailed descriptions of collaboration strategies, 3) a decision analysis tool that guides the selection of collaborative strategies given the community context, and 4) sample contract or agreement language that specifies the nature of the partnership and expectations.

Sponsors

Ohio State University
Lead SponsorOTHER
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
CollaboratorNIH

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Our participants included implementation support professionals who provide training and technical assistance to child welfare agencies in Ohio that are implementing Ohio START. All individuals will be adults and recruited based on their employment/position.

Exclusion criteria

* Individuals who do not provide implementation support.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Perceived AcceptabilityOne time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after presenting the toolkitAcceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) - 4 survey items that assess participants' agreement about the degree to which they perceive the intervention to be acceptable. Participants rate their agreement along a 5 point scale, where 1= completely disagree and 5= completely agree. Scores from the four items will be averaged where higher scores denote greater perceived acceptability. (Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., … Halko, H. (2017). Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science, 12(108), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3)
Perceived AppropriatenessOne time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkitIntervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) - 4 survey items that assess participants' agreement about the degree to which they perceive the intervention to be appropriate. Participants rate their agreement along a 5 point scale, where 1= completely disagree and 5= completely agree. Scores from the four items will be averaged where higher scores denote greater perceived appropriateness. (Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., … Halko, H. (2017). Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science, 12(108), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3)
Perceived FeasibilityOne time point (Post-test only), 8 weeks after introducing the toolkitFeasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) - 4 survey items that assess participants' agreement about the degree to which they perceive the intervention to be feasible. Participants rate their agreement along a 5 point scale, where 1= completely disagree and 5= completely agree. Scores from the four items will be averaged where higher scores denote greater perceived feasibility. (Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., … Halko, H. (2017). Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science, 12(108), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3)

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORAlicia Bunger, PhD

Ohio State University

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Implementation Technical Assistance Providers contracted to support implementation of Ohio START as of January 2024.

Baseline characteristics

Characteristic
Age, Customized9 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
9 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 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
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
9 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
9 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants

Adverse events

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

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Apr 8, 2026