Children, Adult, Mental Health Issue
Conditions
Keywords
Child Welfare Services, Team Effectiveness Research, Shared Decision Making
Brief summary
This project proposes to improve successful mental health service linkage in Child Welfare Services (CWS) by adapting and testing the After Action Review (AAR) team effectiveness intervention to augment the Child Family Team (CFT) services intervention. Despite being both required and a collaborative approach to service planning, CFT meetings are implemented with questionable fidelity and consistency, rarely including children and families as intended. By inclusion of child and family voice, the AAR-enhanced CFT should lead to increased fidelity to the CFT intervention and greater levels of parental satisfaction with the service and shared decision-making, thus resulting in enhanced follow-through with Action Plans and linkage to mental health care for children.
Detailed description
The proposed project will address the following aims: Aim 1. Conduct a qualitative needs assessment targeting the ongoing implementation of the CFT services intervention in a large, publicly funded, CWS. A qualitative inquiry consisting of interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders will result in the preparation of an action plan to address identified gaps between the current and desired CFT services intervention outcomes. Aim 2. Adapt and tailor the AAR implementation strategy to address the CFT services intervention needs. Aim 3. Assess mechanisms of the AAR team effectiveness intervention for CFT implementation.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALAfter-Action Review
After-action reviews, or debriefs, are a relatively simple, inexpensive, and quick, tool to improve learning, performance, and the effectiveness of teams and individuals. After-action reviews are active self-learning processes wherein participants reflect on specific performance episode to actively engage in self-discovery and improve learning in a non-punitive/non-judgmental manner to result in enhanced performance. This proposal aims to apply the team effectiveness intervention of the after-action review (AAR) to the services intervention of the Child and Family Team (CFT) meetings currently used in the CWS.
Sponsors
University of California, San Diego
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
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
No
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion Criteria for CWS leaders and/or caseworkers 1. (For leaders) Employed as one of several CWS leadership positions: CWS Director, CWS Deputy Director, CWS Regional Manager; (For caseworkers) Employed as a caseworker in one of the two participating regions for the proposed study. 2. Plans to remain employed for at least six months beyond study initiation 3. Speaks English or Spanish Inclusion Criteria for formal and informal CFT members 1. Member of CFT with one of the participating CWS caseworkers. CFT members can include mental health services provider, Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), educational representative, and other supports 2. Speaks English or Spanish Inclusion Criteria for parents/caregivers with active CWS cases 1. Parent/caregiver of child aged 6-17 with an open CWS case 2. Initial CFT meeting for open CWS case has not yet been held (Aim 3) 3. Speaks English or Spanish Inclusion Criteria for children with active CWS cases (for mental health service linkage data extraction only--will not engage in any study activities\*) 1. Child aged 6-17 with an open CWS case 2. Mental health services need/s (identified by the CWS caseworker via CANS screening in advance of the initial CFT meeting, during which consensus is reached regarding the Action Plan and service referral)
Exclusion criteria
Individuals who do not meet inclusion criteria are not eligible to participate in this study.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Collaboration & Satisfaction About Care Decisions (CSACD) | through study completion, ~9 months | Items from the Satisfaction subscale of the Collaboration \& Satisfaction About Care Decisions (CSACD) measure was used in this study to assess satisfaction with the decision-making process, and satisfaction with the decision itself. Each participant completes the CSACD Satisfaction items immediately following their completion of the intervention (\<1 hour). Participants respond to each item using a 7-point likert-type scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Higher values indicate greater satisfaction. |
| San Diego (SD) County Behavioral Health Administrative Data | through study completion, ~9 months | For child welfare involved youth with behavioral health treatment plans, SD County Behavioral Health Administrative Data will be assessed to determine successful service linkage. Data indicate whether or not a child welfare involved youth utilized behavioral health services at any time through study completion. |
| Mathieu Team Processes Scale | through study completion, ~9 months | Three subscales of the Mathieu Team Processes Scale were administered to participants immediately following study participation (\<1 hour) to assess the team process of the CFT. The subscales included goal specification, strategy formulation, and coordination. Participants respond on a scale ranging from 1=Not at all to 5=to a very great extent. Scale scores are computed by calculating the average item response. Higher scores indicate better team processes. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability, Feasibility, and Appropriateness of Intervention Measure | through study completion, ~9 months | This 12-item measure will be administered to CFT+AAR participants immediately following completion of the CFT+AAR intervention (\<1 hour). The measure includes three subscales assessing the After-Action Review's 1) Acceptability (appealing, liked, and welcomed in their setting), 2) Appropriateness (fitting, suitable, and applicable in their setting), and Feasibility (possible and doable in their setting). Each item is rated using the following response options: 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. Subscale scores are calculated by averaging responses for items representing acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility, respectively. Higher scores reflect greater acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. |
| Card-Sorting Task | through study completion, ~9 months | Card sorting elicits individual mental models to understand how participants structure their knowledge. In closed card sorts, participants are similarly given a set of key concepts, but participants are given pre-defined categories that each concept must be sorted into. Within team environments, card sorting can be used to examine the degree to which team members are thinking about key concepts in a similar manner (e.g., team mental models) by comparing the categories and sorted content across members. For this proposal, each participant will complete the card sorting task immediately following completion of the intervention (\<1 hour). The card sort task includes 11 tasks that participants bust organize into CFT member roles. Card sorts can be scored by analyzing team-level same bucket counts. Team-level same bucket count scores range from 0 to 11. Higher scores indicate greater shared mental model. |
| McAllister Affect-Based Trust | through study completion, ~9 months | The 5-item scale assesses perceptions of affect-based trust amongst CFT members. Items center on individual's perceptions that team members can share ideas freely, that team members listen to one another, that team members care for one another, and that team members are invested in working well with one another. Each participant will complete the measure immediately following their completion of the intervention (\<1 hour). Participants respond on a scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Scale scores are computed by calculating the average item response. Higher scores indicate greater trust. |
| Psychological Safety | through study completion, ~9 months | Edmondson's 7-item Psychological Safety Climate Measure evaluates perceptions of the work environment (in this case, the CFT meeting) as being one wherein policies and procedures foster a safe and comfortable space for interpersonal risk. Each participant will complete the Psychological Safety Climate Measure immediately following their completion of the intervention (\<1 hour). Participants respond on a scale ranging from 0=doesn't apply at all to 4=entirely applies. Overall scale scores are computed by calculating the average item response. Higher scores indicate greater psychological safety. |
| State-Wide CFT Fidelity Tool | through study completion, ~9 months | The CFT Meeting Observation Tool is intended to support agencies in evaluating quality of and adherence to intended practice of child and family team (CFT) meetings. Research team observers of the CFT will complete the observation tool throughout the duration of CFT observation indicating the extent to which certain CFT quality practices were present during the CFT meeting. Response options range from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. A CFT fidelity score is calculated by taking the average score across items. Higher scores reflect greater fidelity. |
| Knoll and Van Dick Silence Measure | through study completion, ~9 months | Knoll and Van Dick's Silence Measure includes two subscales representing acquiescent silence and quiescent silence. Participants respond on a scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Scale scores are computed by calculating the average item response. Higher scores indicate greater acquiescent and quiescent silence. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Following completion of the CFT meeting, adult CFT meeting attendees were invited to participate in the trial. CFT meeting attendees included child welfare protective social worker or supervisor, bioparents, resource parents/caregivers, formal supports (e.g., providers, attorneys), and informal supports (e.g., family members, friends). Youth were not enrolled in the study. Under a waiver of consent/assent, administrative data was extracted to assess youth service linkage.
Pre-assignment details
Upon providing their informed consent, participants in the CFT+AAR condition would proceed with the AAR, followed by an anonymous, web-based survey. Participants in the CFT-as-usual condition would proceed with the anonymous, web-based survey only. The web-based survey allowed participants to skip questions. As a result, some participant baseline characteristics remain unknown.
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | — |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 40.7 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.7 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 47 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 103 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 20 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 10 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 29 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 28 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 37 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 108 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 73 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Male | 39 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Missing | 4 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Other | 1 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Prefer not to answer | 5 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 185 | 0 / 95 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 185 | 0 / 95 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 185 | 0 / 95 |
Outcome results
None listed