Implementation Science
Conditions
Brief summary
Study objectives are to design and pilot test a novel, exposure-based implementation strategy (EBIS) directly targeting clinician anxiety and low self-efficacy for use of evidence-based suicide screening, assessment, and intervention (SSAI) strategies with patients at risk for suicide in community settings. Early phases of this study will develop the EBIS in partnership with community clinicians (n = 15). The last phase of this study is a pilot clinical trial in which 40 community mental health clinicians will be randomized to receive either implementation as usual (IAU) or IAU+EBIS.
Detailed description
This exploratory project brings together an interdisciplinary team to design and pilot-test an exposure-based implementation strategy (EBIS) to target clinician-level anxiety about suicide screening, assessment, and intervention (SSAI) use. We will test the effect of EBIS as an implementation strategy to augment Implementation as Usual (IAU) to enhance SSAI implementation in community mental health settings. Specifically, this study first will use participatory design methods to develop and refine EBIS in collaboration with a stakeholder advisory board of clinicians, administrators, and content experts. This study then will further iteratively refine EBIS with up to 15 clinicians in a pilot field test, using rapid cycle prototyping, in collaboration with the INSPIRE Methods Core. Clinicians in Aim 2 will also provide qualitative feedback on EBIS' ability to mitigate anxiety and increase self-efficacy to deliver SSAIs to optimize our ability to engage target mechanisms of clinician anxiety. In the final phase, this study will test the refined EBIS in a pilot implementation trial in which 40 community mental health clinicians will be randomized to receive either IAU or EBIS+IAU. Primary clinical trial dependent variables are EBIS acceptability and feasibility, measured through questionnaires, interviews, and recruitment and retention statistics; this pilot trial is not intended to be powered to detect effects. Secondary outcomes are preliminary effectiveness of EBIS on clinician-level implementation outcomes (SSAI adoption), and engagement of target implementation mechanisms (clinician anxiety and self-efficacy related to SSAI use), assessed via mixed methods. Aim 1 did not include data collection from study participants. Activities in this aim only included refinement with the advisory board members who were not considered study participants. Data collected in Aim 2 was largely descriptive and qualitative to inform EBIS development and refinement activities. We are reporting Aim 3 data which included pilot randomization with clinicians. Data was collected at the following timepoints: Time 1: baseline measures completed before the training; Time 2: immediately after completing the training; Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALExposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS)
EBIS will include psychoeducation, assessment/hierarchy building. guided practice, and guidance for application to clinical practice.
BEHAVIORALImplementation as Usual (IAU)
IAU will consist of standard didactic training and ongoing consultation activities for enrolled clinicians
Sponsors
University of Pennsylvania
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Practicing mental health clinicians who provide direct mental health services to a treatment-seeking population * Proficient in the English language * Have access to a computer with internet connectivity
Exclusion criteria
* Participants will be excluded if they do not see any mental health patients that are at risk for suicide (e.g., they screen out high-risk patients for their individual practice).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician Perception of EBIS Acceptability for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training | Time 4: 12 weeks after completing training | Acceptability of EBIS was measured with the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), a 4-item, psychometrically-validated measure that indexes the extent to which stakeholders believe an implementation strategy is acceptable. Items on the AIM are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Range = 4-20) and higher scores indicate greater acceptability. |
| Clinician Perception of EBIS Feasibility and Utility for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training | Time 4: 12 weeks after completing training | Feasibility of EBIS was measured with the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), a 4-item measure that indexes the extent to which an implementation strategy is perceived as feasible. Items on the FIM are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Range = 4-20) and higher scores indicate greater acceptability. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1: baseline measures completed before the training; Time 2: immediately after completing the training; Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training. | Clinician anxiety was assessed via 10-point Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS), a 10-point Likert rating of subjective distress where 1 = Not at all Distressed and 10 = Very Distressed. Clinicians rated their anxiety on screening and safety planning separately. |
| Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1: baseline measures completed before the training; Time 2: immediately after completing the training; Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training | Self-efficacy was measured via responses to two statements on a 7-point scale measuring clinicians' self-efficacy to use SSAIs, using established question stems from behavioral science (e.g., If I really wanted to, I could screen every patient I see for suicide risk). Self-efficacy was assessed separately for clinician self-efficacy for suicide screening and for use of the Safety Planning Intervention. Higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy. Scores were averaged for analysis (Range = 1 - 7). |
| Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1: baseline measures completed before the training; Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training | Use of clinician routine suicide screening in all patient encounters was indexed via chart-stimulated recall (CSR). CSR is an established technique for examining clinician decision-making and clinical processes beyond what can be determined from chart review or self-report alone. A research team member reviewed the clinician's deidentified caseload with them for the past clinic week. For each patient seen that week, the researcher asked brief questions related to the clinicians' suicide-related practices around screening for suicide risk. Results below report the proportion of patients clinicians screened for suicide out of the total number of patients seen on one clinical day. |
| Safety Planning Intervention Use (Fidelity) at Time 3 (Two Weeks After Completing the Training) and Time 4 (12 Weeks After Completing the Training) | Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training | SPI Fidelity was indexed at Time 3 and Time 4 through case vignettes and standardized role play methodology. Participants received a vignette and prepare for a 45-60-minute role play, during which they were asked to complete an SPI with a patient who was determined to be at-risk for suicide following Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) administration. Role plays were audio-recorded and coded for competence with the Safety Planning Intervention Rating Scale (SPIRS), developed by INSPIRE MPI G. Brown. This observational scale include 6 items on general safety plan intervention skills and 6 items which mapped onto the safety plan steps on a 4-point scale (0=not present to 3=excellent). Total scores were calculated by summing the 12 items with higher scores indicating greater SPI fidelity. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
We are reporting Aim 3 data which included pilot randomization with clinicians. Data from Aims 1 and 2 are not included as these aims were largely preparatory. Aim 3 data was collected at baseline before the training (Time 1), after the training (Time 2), two weeks after the training (Time 3), and 12 weeks after the training (Time 4). These clinician participants were recruited from 5 agencies between July to August 2023.
Pre-assignment details
42 participants were consented into the study. 3 dropped out before completing any study activities due to time constraints or a change in eligibility status. 39 completed baseline measures before randomization (time 1). Of the 39, 3 dropped out due to timing constraints or change in eligibility status. 36 were randomized to condition by training type.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Enrolled, Not Yet Randomized Participant information reported below include Aim 3 data captured before participants were randomized into EBIS or IAU conditions. After participants consented to study participation, they completed baseline measures. Participants were randomized after all participants were consented 1:1 by training date (EBIS or IAU). | 42 |
| Total | 42 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time 3 | Elected not to continue with study due to time constraints | 1 | 1 |
| Time 4 | Elected not to continue with study due to personal reasons unrelated to the study | 1 | 0 |
| Time 4 | Elected not to continue with study due to time constraints | 0 | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Enrolled, Not Yet Randomized |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 37.0 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.85 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 5 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 37 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 11 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 23 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 42 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 32 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 10 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 18 | 0 / 18 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 18 | 0 / 18 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 18 | 0 / 18 |
Outcome results
Primary
Clinician Perception of EBIS Acceptability for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training
Acceptability of EBIS was measured with the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), a 4-item, psychometrically-validated measure that indexes the extent to which stakeholders believe an implementation strategy is acceptable. Items on the AIM are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Range = 4-20) and higher scores indicate greater acceptability.
Time frame: Time 4: 12 weeks after completing training
Population: After completing baseline measures, participants were randomized to training condition. By the end of the 12 week trial, 2 participants had dropped out of each study condition (n = 4).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Perception of EBIS Acceptability for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training | 4.55 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.53 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Perception of EBIS Acceptability for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training | 4.56 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.46 |
Comparison: T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for AIMp-value: 0.47t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Clinician Perception of EBIS Feasibility and Utility for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training
Feasibility of EBIS was measured with the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), a 4-item measure that indexes the extent to which an implementation strategy is perceived as feasible. Items on the FIM are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (Range = 4-20) and higher scores indicate greater acceptability.
Time frame: Time 4: 12 weeks after completing training
Population: After completing baseline measures, participants were randomized to training condition. By the end of the 12 week trial, 2 participants had dropped out of each study condition (n = 4).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Perception of EBIS Feasibility and Utility for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training | 4.59 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.48 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Perception of EBIS Feasibility and Utility for Clinical Practice at Time 4, 12 Weeks After Completing Training | 4.63 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.47 |
Comparison: T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for FIMp-value: 0.88t-test, 2 sided
Secondary
Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks
Clinician anxiety was assessed via 10-point Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS), a 10-point Likert rating of subjective distress where 1 = Not at all Distressed and 10 = Very Distressed. Clinicians rated their anxiety on screening and safety planning separately.
Time frame: Time 1: baseline measures completed before the training; Time 2: immediately after completing the training; Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training.
Population: This measure was completed across four timepoints. 2 participants dropped out of the study after post-intervention measures. 2 additional participants dropped out after two week follow up measures
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1: SUDS, screening | 4.28 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.78 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1: SUDS, planning | 4.67 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.3 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2: SUDS, screening | 5.06 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.01 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2: SUDS, planning | 5.50 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.38 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3: SUDS, screening | 4.59 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3: SUDS, planning | 4.76 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.11 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4: SUDS, screening | 3.75 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.53 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4: SUDS, planning | 3.50 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.79 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4: SUDS, planning | 3.81 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.43 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1: SUDS, screening | 3.94 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.36 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3: SUDS, screening | 4.06 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.14 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1: SUDS, planning | 4.28 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.11 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4: SUDS, screening | 3.25 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.77 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2: SUDS, screening | 3.94 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.29 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3: SUDS, planning | 4.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.57 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Anxiety at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2: SUDS, planning | 4.33 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.97 |
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.46t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.4t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.56t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.68t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4p-value: 0.87ANCOVA
Comparison: repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS planning at timepoints 1, 3, and 4p-value: 0.43ANCOVA
Secondary
Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks
Self-efficacy was measured via responses to two statements on a 7-point scale measuring clinicians' self-efficacy to use SSAIs, using established question stems from behavioral science (e.g., If I really wanted to, I could screen every patient I see for suicide risk). Self-efficacy was assessed separately for clinician self-efficacy for suicide screening and for use of the Safety Planning Intervention. Higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy. Scores were averaged for analysis (Range = 1 - 7).
Time frame: Time 1: baseline measures completed before the training; Time 2: immediately after completing the training; Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training
Population: This measure was completed across four timepoints. 2 participants dropped out of the study after post-intervention measures. 2 additional participants dropped out after two week follow up measures
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1, screening | 5.08 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.33 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1, intervention | 4.94 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.03 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2, screening | 5.44 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2, intervention | 5.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.16 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3, screening | 5.46 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.96 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3, intervention | 5.53 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4, screening | 5.75 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.91 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4, intervention | 5.67 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.82 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4, intervention | 5.34 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.12 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1, screening | 4.96 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.27 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3, screening | 5.26 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.11 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1, intervention | 4.53 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.41 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4, screening | 5.56 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.01 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2, screening | 5.06 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.04 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3, intervention | 5.07 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.17 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Clinician Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at 4 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 2, intervention | 5.22 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.22 |
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.59t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.59t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.25t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.35t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4p-value: 0.88ANCOVA
Comparison: repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy intervening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4p-value: 0.71ANCOVA
Secondary
Safety Planning Intervention Use (Fidelity) at Time 3 (Two Weeks After Completing the Training) and Time 4 (12 Weeks After Completing the Training)
SPI Fidelity was indexed at Time 3 and Time 4 through case vignettes and standardized role play methodology. Participants received a vignette and prepare for a 45-60-minute role play, during which they were asked to complete an SPI with a patient who was determined to be at-risk for suicide following Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) administration. Role plays were audio-recorded and coded for competence with the Safety Planning Intervention Rating Scale (SPIRS), developed by INSPIRE MPI G. Brown. This observational scale include 6 items on general safety plan intervention skills and 6 items which mapped onto the safety plan steps on a 4-point scale (0=not present to 3=excellent). Total scores were calculated by summing the 12 items with higher scores indicating greater SPI fidelity.
Time frame: Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training
Population: This measure was completed across 2 timepoints. 2 participants dropped out after two week follow up measures
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Safety Planning Intervention Use (Fidelity) at Time 3 (Two Weeks After Completing the Training) and Time 4 (12 Weeks After Completing the Training) | Time 3: total SPIRS score | 14.06 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.71 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Safety Planning Intervention Use (Fidelity) at Time 3 (Two Weeks After Completing the Training) and Time 4 (12 Weeks After Completing the Training) | Time 4: total SPIRS score | 15.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.65 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Safety Planning Intervention Use (Fidelity) at Time 3 (Two Weeks After Completing the Training) and Time 4 (12 Weeks After Completing the Training) | Time 3: total SPIRS score | 11.88 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.28 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Safety Planning Intervention Use (Fidelity) at Time 3 (Two Weeks After Completing the Training) and Time 4 (12 Weeks After Completing the Training) | Time 4: total SPIRS score | 15.38 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.75 |
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 3: two weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.24t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.88t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SPIRS at timepoints 3 and 4p-value: 0.1ANCOVA
Secondary
Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks
Use of clinician routine suicide screening in all patient encounters was indexed via chart-stimulated recall (CSR). CSR is an established technique for examining clinician decision-making and clinical processes beyond what can be determined from chart review or self-report alone. A research team member reviewed the clinician's deidentified caseload with them for the past clinic week. For each patient seen that week, the researcher asked brief questions related to the clinicians' suicide-related practices around screening for suicide risk. Results below report the proportion of patients clinicians screened for suicide out of the total number of patients seen on one clinical day.
Time frame: Time 1: baseline measures completed before the training; Time 3: two weeks after completing the training; Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training
Population: This measure was completed across 3 timepoints. 2 participants dropped out of the study after post-intervention measures. 2 additional participants dropped out after two week follow up measures
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1 | .50 units | Standard Deviation 0.44 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3 | .49 units | Standard Deviation 0.46 |
| Exposure Based Implementation Strategy (EBIS) | Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4 | .62 units | Standard Deviation 0.38 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 4 | .54 units | Standard Deviation 0.4 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 1 | .56 units | Standard Deviation 0.44 |
| Implementation as Usual (IAU) | Screening Use at 3 Timepoints Across 12 Weeks | Time 3 | .52 units | Standard Deviation 0.35 |
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 3: two weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.88t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the trainingp-value: 0.55t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: CSR screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4p-value: 0.36ANCOVA