Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Conditions
Keywords
youth, child, adolescent, young adult, psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist, counselor, teen, provider, therapist, clinician
Brief summary
The overall goal of the larger 3-aim study is to develop and pilot test a training intervention to increase mental health providers' use of evidence-based practices with youth patients. Aim 3 (registered here) of the study is an open trial pilot study at a multi-clinic mental health agency, aimed at examining the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a future randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Detailed description
The overall goal of the larger 3-aim study is to develop and pilot test a training intervention to increase mental health providers' use of evidence-based practices with youth patients. The Boston College Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved protocol #21.247.01-15. Aim 1 involved designing the training intervention through an extensive literature review and community-engaged methods that centered on collaborations with providers, youth patients, and parents. Aim 2 (in progress) entails refining the training intervention via human centered design methods. Aim 3 (registered here) of the study is an open trial pilot study at a multi-clinic mental health agency, aimed at examining the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a future randomized controlled trial (RCT). Effectiveness and implementation data from both providers (n=49) and patients (i.e., youth and their parents; n=50 GMY and n=30 caregivers) will be collected and analyzed. Primary outcomes are measured at the provider-level and secondary outcomes are measured at the patient-level (i.e., patients and their parents).
Interventions
The training intervention is a modular online asynchronous training intervention designed to increase mental health providers' use of evidence-based practices with youth patients (ages 12-25). It was developed using community-engaged and human-centered design methods with key stakeholders (youth, their parents, mental health providers). In this open trial, the training will be offered to mental health providers at a multisite mental health clinic in the U.S. (referred to as pilot site herein).
Sponsors
Study design
Intervention model description
The single-arm intervention will test an online, asynchronous training intervention.
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
For provider participants: * Mental health care providers (e.g., psychologists, social workers) employed by the pilot site at the time of the pilot test and who work with clients ages 12-25 * Age 18 or older * Fluent in English For GMY participants: * Identify as a gender-minority. * Age 12-25 * Currently receiving mental health services from the pilot site * Fluent in English For parents of youth participants: * Parents of youth currently receiving mental health services at the pilot site * 18 or older * Fluent in English
Exclusion criteria
* Provided that participants meet the aforementioned inclusion criteria, there are no explicit criteria for exclusion.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Provider Participant Recruitment Rates (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | At time of training intervention | Percent of providers at pilot site who consented to participate in the study relative to number of employed providers at pilot site. |
| Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at Post-training (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | Pre-training to post-training (up to 4 weeks after the training) | Change in the percent of providers who complete pre- and post- assessments of those who consented to participate. These assessment completion rates will also be compared to the 6- and 12-month assessment completion rates. |
| Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at 6-month Followup (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | Post-training (up to 4 weeks after the training) to 6-month followup | Change in the percent of providers who complete post- and 6-month followup assessments of those who consented to participate. These assessment completion rates will also be compared to the pre-training and 12-month assessment completion rates. |
| Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at 12-month Followup (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | 6-month followup to 12-month followup | Change in the percent of providers who complete 6- and 12-month followup assessments of those who consented to participate. These assessment completion rates will also be compared to the pre-training and post-training assessment completion rates. |
| Change in the Adoption of Practices Learned in the Training Intervention at 12-month Followup | Baseline, Post-training, 6-month to 12-month followup | A self-report survey measuring whether, and the extent to which, provider participants used the practices they learned in the training intervention. The survey is currently being developed and will be adapted based on the Pachankis et al. (2022) measure Providers' Familiarity With and Use of LGBTQ-affirmative CBT Skills. The survey will be administered at the 6- and 12 month followups to see the change over time. Scores are calculated using mean scores for values 0-4 with higher numbers indicating more of the use of the practice (i.e., (0) Not at all, (4) Very much) |
| Electronic Monitoring of Training Intervention Completion (Adoption of Training Intervention) | up to the 12-month followup | Electronic monitoring of training intervention completion by providers (i.e., whether all modules were completed). |
| Primary Outcome: Electronic Monitoring of Training Intervention Engagement (Adoption of Training Intervention) | up to the 12-month followup | Electronic monitoring of training intervention engagement (e.g., days spent completing the training) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Client Behavioral Engagement by Session Participation | Weekly from pre-intervention to 12 months after training intervention completion | Available chart data from clients of providers who completed the intervention will be monitored for their behavioral engagement. Session participation will be measured by electronic health record monitoring of treatment measures completion (e.g., answering all questions and submitting measures related to client treatment, such as the TAQs). |
| Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale (Client Symptomatology & Functioning) | Monthly from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up | The Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale which is a 13-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to reflect on behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that the client had in the last 2 weeks. Items are rated on a 5-point scale with higher responses corresponding to more frequent experiences of negative behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (e.g., 1= Never, 2= Hardly Ever, 3= Sometimes, 4= Often, and 5= Very Often). Scores can range from 33 to 86 for youths, where a high score represents high severity and a low score indicates low severity. Total scores are calculated by adding the rating and then divide the sum by the number of items to calculate the average score.The SFSS will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention SFSS score (i.e., first instance of participant completing SFSS prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up SFSS score. |
| Client Behavioral Engagement by Session Attendance | Weekly from pre-intervention to 12 months after training intervention completion | Available chart data from clients of providers who completed the intervention will be monitored for their behavioral engagement. Session attendance will be measured as an aspect of behavioral engagement by noting attended and canceled sessions. Outcomes report the total number of GMY participants who attended therapy during the timeframe |
| Therapeutic Alliance Quality Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Weekly from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up | The Therapeutic Alliance Quality Scale (TAQS) is a 5-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to reflect on their last session with their therapist. Items are rated on a 5-point scale with higher responses corresponding to higher quality alliance (e.g., 1= Not at all, 2= Only a little, 3= Somewhat, 4= Quite a bit, and 5= Totally). The TAQS will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention TAQs score (i.e., first instance of participant completing TAQs prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up TAQs score. |
| Service Satisfaction Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Every other week from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up | The Service Satisfaction Scale (SSS) is a 5-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to reflect on how satisfied they are with the mental health services that they receive. Items are rated on a 4-point scale with higher responses corresponding to higher service satisfaction (e.g., 1= No, definitely not, 2= No, not really, 3= Yes, generally, and 4= Yes, definitely). The SSS will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention SSS score (i.e., first instance of participant completing SSS prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up SSS score. |
| Treatment Outcomes Expectation Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Pre-intervention | The Treatment Outcomes Expectation Scale (TOES) is a 8-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers about their expectations from counseling. Items are rated on a 3-point scale with higher responses corresponding to more expectations (e.g., 1= I do not expect this, 2= I am not sure, and 3= I do expect this). The TOES will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. |
| Treatment Process Expectations Index (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Pre-intervention | The Treatment Process Expectations Index is a 9-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers about their expectations about counseling. Items are rated on a 3-point scale (e.g., 1= I do not expect this, 2= I am not sure, and 3= I do expect this). There is no right or wrong answer. The reported scores should be interpreted at the item level to identify clinical suggestions for providers based on the clients reported expectations at baseline. The TPEI will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. |
| Ohio Functioning Scale (Client Functioning) | Monthly from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up | The Ohio Functioning Scale is a 20-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to answer questions regarding how the client's problems may get in the way of everyday activities. Items are rated on a 5-point scale with higher responses corresponding to better ability to do everyday activities (e.g., 0= Extreme troubles, 1= Quite a few troubles, 2= Some troubles, 3= Ok, and 4= Doing very well). A total functioning score ranges from 20-100 and is calculated by summing the ratings for all 20 items. Higher scores are indicative of better functioning. The Ohio Functioning Scale will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention Ohio score (i.e., first instance of participant completing Ohio prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up Ohio score. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Providers were not actively recruited, but rather, all partner clinic mental health providers (e.g., psychiatrists, social workers) were invited to participate in the study. Youth patients and their parents recruitment involved sending an interest email to the partner clinic's listserv of all patients and paretnss. Otherwise, youth will be included in the study if they received treatment at the clinic during the open trial phase and were between the ages of 12-25.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Training Intervention The single-arm intervention study will test an online asynchronous. training intervention.
The training is a modular online asynchronous training intervention designed to increase mental health providers' use of evidence-based practices with youth patients (ages 12-25). It was developed using community-engaged and human-centered design methods with key stakeholders (youth patients, their parents, mental health providers). In this open trial, the training will be offered to mental health providers at a multisite mental health clinic in the U.S. (referred to as pilot site herein). | 286 |
| Total | 286 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider Enrollment | Non-clinical employee | 1 |
| Provider Enrollment | On leave (e.g., parental leave) | 3 |
| Provider Enrollment | Other | 5 |
| Provider Enrollment | Provider does not see clients | 3 |
| Provider Enrollment | Worked part-time | 4 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Training Intervention |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous Parents of Youth Patients | NA years |
| Age, Continuous Providers | 37 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 9 |
| Age, Continuous Youth Patients | 16 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 3 |
| Age, Customized Parents of Youth Patients >18 | 0 Participants |
| Age, Customized Parents of Youth Patients 18-65 | 0 Participants |
| Age, Customized Parents of Youth Patients 65< | 0 Participants |
| Age, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Not reported | 68 Participants |
| Age, Customized Providers >18 | 0 Participants |
| Age, Customized Providers 18-65 | 81 Participants |
| Age, Customized Providers 65< | 2 Participants |
| Age, Customized Providers Not reported | 10 Participants |
| Age, Customized Youth Patients >18 | 51 Participants |
| Age, Customized Youth Patients 18-65 | 74 Participants |
| Age, Customized Youth Patients 65< | 0 Participants |
| Age, Customized Youth Patients Not reported | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parents of Youth Patients Hispanic or Latino | 4 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parents of Youth Patients Not Hispanic or Latino | 59 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Parents of Youth Patients Unknown or Not Reported | 5 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Providers Hispanic or Latino | 5 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Providers Not Hispanic or Latino | 78 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Providers Unknown or Not Reported | 10 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Youth Patients Hispanic or Latino | 11 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Youth Patients Not Hispanic or Latino | 66 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Youth Patients Unknown or Not Reported | 48 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients American Indian or Alaska Native: | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Asian: | 7 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Black or African American: | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients More than one race: | 2 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Other: | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Unknown: | 6 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Parents of Youth Patients White: | 52 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers American Indian or Alaska Native: | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers Asian: | 6 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers Black or African American: | 2 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers More than one race: | 4 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers Other: | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers Unknown: | 11 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Providers White: | 65 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients American Indian or Alaska Native: | 2 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients Asian: | 6 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients Black or African American: | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients More than one race: | 15 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients Other: | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients Unknown: | 47 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Youth Patients White: | 50 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 286 participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Cisgender Men | 18 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Cisgender Women | 45 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Nonbinary/genderqueer | 0 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Not Reported | 5 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Transgender Men | 0 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Parents of Youth Patients Transgender Women | 0 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Providers Cisgender Men | 13 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Providers Cisgender Women | 66 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Providers Nonbinary/genderqueer | 4 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Providers Not Reported | 10 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Providers Transgender Men | 0 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Providers Transgender Women | 0 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Youth Patients Cisgender Men | 0 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Youth Patients Cisgender Women | 0 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Youth Patients Nonbinary/genderqueer | 58 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Youth Patients Not Reported | 43 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Youth Patients Transgender Men | 14 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Youth Patients Transgender Women | 10 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 109 | 0 / 125 | 0 / 68 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 109 | 0 / 125 | 0 / 68 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 109 | 0 / 125 | 0 / 68 |
Outcome results
Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at 12-month Followup (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial)
Change in the percent of providers who complete 6- and 12-month followup assessments of those who consented to participate. These assessment completion rates will also be compared to the pre-training and post-training assessment completion rates.
Time frame: 6-month followup to 12-month followup
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at 12-month Followup (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | 46 Participants |
Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at 6-month Followup (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial)
Change in the percent of providers who complete post- and 6-month followup assessments of those who consented to participate. These assessment completion rates will also be compared to the pre-training and 12-month assessment completion rates.
Time frame: Post-training (up to 4 weeks after the training) to 6-month followup
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at 6-month Followup (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | 47 Participants |
Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at Post-training (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial)
Change in the percent of providers who complete pre- and post- assessments of those who consented to participate. These assessment completion rates will also be compared to the 6- and 12-month assessment completion rates.
Time frame: Pre-training to post-training (up to 4 weeks after the training)
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Change in Provider Participant Assessment Completion Rates at Post-training (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | 79 Participants |
Change in the Adoption of Practices Learned in the Training Intervention at 12-month Followup
A self-report survey measuring whether, and the extent to which, provider participants used the practices they learned in the training intervention. The survey is currently being developed and will be adapted based on the Pachankis et al. (2022) measure Providers' Familiarity With and Use of LGBTQ-affirmative CBT Skills. The survey will be administered at the 6- and 12 month followups to see the change over time. Scores are calculated using mean scores for values 0-4 with higher numbers indicating more of the use of the practice (i.e., (0) Not at all, (4) Very much)
Time frame: Baseline, Post-training, 6-month to 12-month followup
Population: Some provider participants did not complete adoption measures at certain time-points
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Change in the Adoption of Practices Learned in the Training Intervention at 12-month Followup | Baseline | 2.76 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.73 |
| Training Intervention | Change in the Adoption of Practices Learned in the Training Intervention at 12-month Followup | Post-training | 3.21 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.68 |
| Training Intervention | Change in the Adoption of Practices Learned in the Training Intervention at 12-month Followup | 6-month follow-up | 2.86 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.73 |
| Training Intervention | Change in the Adoption of Practices Learned in the Training Intervention at 12-month Followup | 12-month follow-up | 3.31 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.51 |
Electronic Monitoring of Training Intervention Completion (Adoption of Training Intervention)
Electronic monitoring of training intervention completion by providers (i.e., whether all modules were completed).
Time frame: up to the 12-month followup
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Electronic Monitoring of Training Intervention Completion (Adoption of Training Intervention) | 78 Participants |
Primary Outcome: Electronic Monitoring of Training Intervention Engagement (Adoption of Training Intervention)
Electronic monitoring of training intervention engagement (e.g., days spent completing the training)
Time frame: up to the 12-month followup
Population: Of the 93 participants who started the training, 78 completed the training. Thus, those 78 providers were analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Primary Outcome: Electronic Monitoring of Training Intervention Engagement (Adoption of Training Intervention) | 18.88 Days | Standard Deviation 31.2 |
Provider Participant Recruitment Rates (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial)
Percent of providers at pilot site who consented to participate in the study relative to number of employed providers at pilot site.
Time frame: At time of training intervention
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Provider Participant Recruitment Rates (Feasibility of Conducting a Larger Trial) | 93 Participants |
Client Behavioral Engagement by Session Attendance
Available chart data from clients of providers who completed the intervention will be monitored for their behavioral engagement. Session attendance will be measured as an aspect of behavioral engagement by noting attended and canceled sessions. Outcomes report the total number of GMY participants who attended therapy during the timeframe
Time frame: Weekly from pre-intervention to 12 months after training intervention completion
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Client Behavioral Engagement by Session Attendance | 125 Participants |
Client Behavioral Engagement by Session Participation
Available chart data from clients of providers who completed the intervention will be monitored for their behavioral engagement. Session participation will be measured by electronic health record monitoring of treatment measures completion (e.g., answering all questions and submitting measures related to client treatment, such as the TAQs).
Time frame: Weekly from pre-intervention to 12 months after training intervention completion
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Client Behavioral Engagement by Session Participation | Youth Patients | 125 Participants |
| Training Intervention | Client Behavioral Engagement by Session Participation | Parents of Youth Patients | 68 Participants |
Ohio Functioning Scale (Client Functioning)
The Ohio Functioning Scale is a 20-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to answer questions regarding how the client's problems may get in the way of everyday activities. Items are rated on a 5-point scale with higher responses corresponding to better ability to do everyday activities (e.g., 0= Extreme troubles, 1= Quite a few troubles, 2= Some troubles, 3= Ok, and 4= Doing very well). A total functioning score ranges from 20-100 and is calculated by summing the ratings for all 20 items. Higher scores are indicative of better functioning. The Ohio Functioning Scale will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention Ohio score (i.e., first instance of participant completing Ohio prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up Ohio score.
Time frame: Monthly from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up
Population: 56 participants total completed the OHIO measure. 2 youth participants and 1 caregiver participant completed the measure at both the pre- and 12-month follow-up timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Ohio Functioning Scale (Client Functioning) | Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 37.3 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.63 |
| Training Intervention | Ohio Functioning Scale (Client Functioning) | Youth Patients, 12-month follow-Up | 59.89 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.57 |
| Training Intervention | Ohio Functioning Scale (Client Functioning) | Parent of Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 33.88 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 16.87 |
| Training Intervention | Ohio Functioning Scale (Client Functioning) | Parent of Youth Patients, 12-month follow-up | 62.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.59 |
Service Satisfaction Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement)
The Service Satisfaction Scale (SSS) is a 5-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to reflect on how satisfied they are with the mental health services that they receive. Items are rated on a 4-point scale with higher responses corresponding to higher service satisfaction (e.g., 1= No, definitely not, 2= No, not really, 3= Yes, generally, and 4= Yes, definitely). The SSS will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention SSS score (i.e., first instance of participant completing SSS prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up SSS score.
Time frame: Every other week from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up
Population: 60 participants total completed the SSS measure. 3 youth participants and 1 caregiver participants completed the measure at both the pre- and 12-month follow-up timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Service Satisfaction Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 3.25 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.44 |
| Training Intervention | Service Satisfaction Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Youth Patients, 12-month follow-up | 3.65 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.46 |
| Training Intervention | Service Satisfaction Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Parents of Youth Patients, pre-intervention | 3.12 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.63 |
| Training Intervention | Service Satisfaction Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Parents of Youth Patients, 12-month follow-up | 3.96 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.09 |
Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale (Client Symptomatology & Functioning)
The Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale which is a 13-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to reflect on behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that the client had in the last 2 weeks. Items are rated on a 5-point scale with higher responses corresponding to more frequent experiences of negative behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (e.g., 1= Never, 2= Hardly Ever, 3= Sometimes, 4= Often, and 5= Very Often). Scores can range from 33 to 86 for youths, where a high score represents high severity and a low score indicates low severity. Total scores are calculated by adding the rating and then divide the sum by the number of items to calculate the average score.The SFSS will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention SFSS score (i.e., first instance of participant completing SFSS prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up SFSS score.
Time frame: Monthly from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up
Population: 67 participants total completed the SFSS measure. 2 youth participants and 3 caregiver participants completed the measure at both the pre- and 12-month follow-up timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale (Client Symptomatology & Functioning) | Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 52.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.47 |
| Training Intervention | Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale (Client Symptomatology & Functioning) | Youth Patients, 12-month follow-up | 46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.14 |
| Training Intervention | Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale (Client Symptomatology & Functioning) | Parents of Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 44.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.89 |
| Training Intervention | Symptoms and Functionality Severity Scale (Client Symptomatology & Functioning) | Parents of Youth Patients, 12-month follow-up | 38.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.42 |
Therapeutic Alliance Quality Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement)
The Therapeutic Alliance Quality Scale (TAQS) is a 5-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers to reflect on their last session with their therapist. Items are rated on a 5-point scale with higher responses corresponding to higher quality alliance (e.g., 1= Not at all, 2= Only a little, 3= Somewhat, 4= Quite a bit, and 5= Totally). The TAQS will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers. Outcomes report pre-intervention TAQs score (i.e., first instance of participant completing TAQs prior-to intervention) and 12-month follow-up TAQs score.
Time frame: Weekly from pre-intervention to 12-month follow up
Population: 52 total participants completed the TAQS measure. 3 youth participants completed the measure both at the pre- and 12-month follow-up timepoints.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Therapeutic Alliance Quality Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 3.72 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.76 |
| Training Intervention | Therapeutic Alliance Quality Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Youth Patients, 12-month Follow-up | 3.95 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.14 |
| Training Intervention | Therapeutic Alliance Quality Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Parents of Youth Patients, Pre-Intervention | 2.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.17 |
Treatment Outcomes Expectation Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement)
The Treatment Outcomes Expectation Scale (TOES) is a 8-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers about their expectations from counseling. Items are rated on a 3-point scale with higher responses corresponding to more expectations (e.g., 1= I do not expect this, 2= I am not sure, and 3= I do expect this). The TOES will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers.
Time frame: Pre-intervention
Population: 47 participants total completed the TOES measure. 23 youth participants and 24 caregiver participants completed the measure at pre-intervention.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Treatment Outcomes Expectation Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 2.4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.43 |
| Training Intervention | Treatment Outcomes Expectation Scale (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Parents of Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 2.62 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.28 |
Treatment Process Expectations Index (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement)
The Treatment Process Expectations Index is a 9-item questionnaire that asks clients and their caregivers about their expectations about counseling. Items are rated on a 3-point scale (e.g., 1= I do not expect this, 2= I am not sure, and 3= I do expect this). There is no right or wrong answer. The reported scores should be interpreted at the item level to identify clinical suggestions for providers based on the clients reported expectations at baseline. The TPEI will be administered to clients aged 12-25 and caregivers.
Time frame: Pre-intervention
Population: TPEI items are interpreted at the item level and are not scored together; therefore, outcomes report the number of participants who completed the measure.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training Intervention | Treatment Process Expectations Index (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 23 Participants |
| Training Intervention | Treatment Process Expectations Index (Client Satisfaction & Attitudinal Engagement) | Parents of Youth Patients, Pre-intervention | 24 Participants |