Using Novel Implementation Tools for Evidence-based Intervention Delivery (UNITED) across public service systems for three evidence-based autism interventions in under-resourced communities: study protocol

Jill Locke, Elizabeth McGhee Hassrick, Aubyn C Stahmer, Suzannah Iadarola, Brian Boyd, David S Mandell, Wendy Shih, Lisa Hund, Connie Kasari, AIR-B Network, Jill Locke, Elizabeth McGhee Hassrick, Aubyn C Stahmer, Suzannah Iadarola, Brian Boyd, David S Mandell, Wendy Shih, Lisa Hund, Connie Kasari, AIR-B Network

Abstract

Background: There are a growing number of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for autistic individuals, but few are successfully implemented with fidelity in under-resourced communities and with families from traditionally disenfranchised groups. Implementation science offers tools to increase EBI use in communities, but most implementation strategies are designed specific to a single EBI. It is not feasible to develop a new implementation strategy each time a new EBI is introduced in the community. Therefore, to test the effectiveness and generalizability of implementation strategies we are developing and testing a multifaceted implementation strategy with three EBIs concurrently. The goal of this protocol paper is to describe the randomized field trial of an implementation strategy for use across autism EBIs, diverse settings and participants, with the goal of increasing rapid uptake of effective practices to reach our most vulnerable children.

Methods: We developed a multifaceted implementation strategy called Using Novel Implementation Tools for Evidence-based intervention Delivery (UNITED) to facilitate the implementation and sustainment of three EBIs in under-resourced settings. We will compare fidelity to, and effectiveness of, each intervention [Mind the Gap (MTG), Remaking Recess (RR), Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI)] with and without UNITED in a randomized field trial. Randomization will be stratified using a minimization allocation method. We will train community practitioners using remote delivery of modules specific to the intervention, and active coaching via Zoom for at least 6 sessions and up to 12 as dictated by each EBI. Our primary outcome is fidelity to each EBI, and our secondary outcome is at the child or family level (family empowerment for MTG, child peer social engagement for RR, and adolescent self-determination for SDLMI, respectively). We will measure progress through the implementation phases using the Stages of Implementation Completion and cost-effectiveness of UNITED.

Discussion: The results of this study will provide rigorous data on the effectiveness and generalizability of one relatively light-touch implementation strategy in increasing use of autism EBIs and associated outcomes in diverse under resourced public service settings for underrepresented autistic youth.

Trial registration: Mind the Gap: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04972825 (Date registered July 22, 2021); Remaking Recess: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04972838 (Date registered July 22, 2021); Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04972851 (Date registered July 22, 2021).

Keywords: Autism; Collaborative teaming; Implementation strategy; Mind the gap; Remaking recess; Self-determined learning model of instruction; Social network analysis; Stages of implementation completion.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
UNITED implementation and sustainment plan template

References

    1. Cook BG, Odom SL. Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Except Child. 2013;79:135–144. doi: 10.1177/0014402913079002021.
    1. Dingfelder HE, Mandell DS. Bridging the research-to-practice gap in autism intervention: an application of diffusion of innovation theory. J Autism Dev Disord. 2011;41(5):597–609. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1081-0.
    1. Locke J, Kang-Yi C, Pellecchia M, Mandell DS. It’s messy but real: A pilot study of the implementation of a social engagement intervention for children with autism in schools. J Res Spec Educ Needs. 2019;19:135–144. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12436.
    1. Locke J, Shih W, Kang-Yi C, Caramanico J, Shingledecker T, Gibson J, Frederick LK, Mandell DS. The impact of implementation support on the use of a social engagement intervention for children with autism in public schools. Autism. 2019;23:834–845. doi: 10.1177/1362361318787802.
    1. Kasari C, Smith T. Interventions in schools for children with autism spectrum disorder: methods and recommendations. Autism. 2013;17(3):254–267. doi: 10.1177/1362361312470496.
    1. Steinbrenner JR, McIntyre N, Rentschler LF, Hume KA. Patterns in reporting and participant inclusion related to race and ethnicity in autism intervention literature: data from a large-scale systematic review of evidence-based practices. Autism. 2022. 10.1177/13623613211072593
    1. Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA. 2007;297(4):407–410. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.4.407.
    1. Kasari C, Smith T. Forest for the trees: evidence-based practices in ASD. CPSP. 2016;23(3):260–264. doi: 10.1111/cpsp.12161.
    1. Locke J, Lawson M, Beidas RS, Aarons GA, Xie M, Lyon AR, Stahmer AC, Seidman M, Frederick L, Oh C, Spaulding C, Dorsey S, Mandell DS. Individual and organizational factors that affect implementation of evidence-based practices for children with autism in public schools: A cross-sectional observational study. Implementation Sci. 2019;14:29. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0877-3PMC6417160.
    1. Brookman-Frazee L, Chlebowski C, Suhrheinrich J, Finn N, Dickson K, Aarons G, Stahmer AC. Characterizing implementation processes and influences in community effectiveness trials: Applying the EPIS framework to two large-scale autism trials. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2019. Online First. 10.1007/s10488-019-00931-4 PMC4500757.
    1. Wolk CB, Locke J, Salas E, Eiraldi R, Cronholm PF, Mandell D. An examination of the factor structure of TeamSTEPPS measures in school mental health teams. J Psychol Couns Sch. 2018:1–13. 10.1017/jgc.2019.18
    1. Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Williams NJ. Randomized trial of the availability, responsiveness and continuity (ARC) organizational intervention for improving youth outcomes in community mental health programs. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52(5):458–461. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2013.02.005.
    1. Williams NJ, Glisson C. Testing a theory of organizational culture, climate and youth outcomes in child welfare systems: a United States national study. Child Abuse Negl. 2014;38(4):757–767. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.09.003.
    1. Palinkas LA, Fuentes D, Finno M, Garcia AR, Holloway IW, Chamberlain P. Inter-organizational collaboration in the implementation of evidence-based practices among public agencies serving abused and neglected youth. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2014;41(1):74–85. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0437-5.
    1. Palinkas LA, Holloway IW, Rice E, Brown CH, Valente TW, Chamberlain P. Influence network linkages across implementation strategy conditions in a randomized controlled trial of two strategies for scaling up evidence-based practices in public youth-serving systems. Implementation Sci. 2013;8(1):133. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-133.
    1. Brown CH, Mason WA, Brown EC. Translating the intervention approach into an appropriate research design: The next-generation adaptive designs for effectiveness and implementation research. Boston, MA: In Defining prevention science. Springer; 2014. pp. 363–387.
    1. Locke J, Wolk CB, Harker C, Olsen A, Shingledecker T, Barg F, Mandell DS, Beidas R. Pebbles, rocks, and boulders: the implementation of a school-based social engagement intervention for children with autism. Autism. 2017;21(8):985–994. doi: 10.1177/1362361316664474.
    1. Shire SY, Worthman LB, Shih W, Kasari C. Comparison of Face-to-Face and Remote Support for Interventionists Learning to Deliver JASPER Intervention with Children Who have Autism. JEBS. 2020:1–22.
    1. Valente TW, Palinkas LA, Czaja S, Chu K-H, Brown CH. Social network analysis for program implementation. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0131712. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131712.
    1. Valente TW. Network interventions. Science. 2012;337(6090):49–53. doi: 10.1126/science.1217330.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Sci. 2009;4(1):1–15. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
    1. Flodgren G, Deane K, Dickinson HO, Kirk S, Alberti H, Beyer FR, Eccles MP. Interventions to change the behaviour of health professionals and the organisation of care to promote weight reduction in overweight and obese adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(3). 10.1002/14651858.CD000984.pub2
    1. Valente TW. Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.
    1. Bell ST, Brown SG, Colaneri A, Outland N. Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. American Psychol. 2018;73(4):349. doi: 10.1037/amp0000305.
    1. Kozlowski SW, Chao GT. Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods. American Psychol. 2018;73(4):576. doi: 10.1037/amp0000245.
    1. Iadarola S, Pellecchia M, Stahmer A, Lee HS, Hauptman L, Hassrick EM, Luelmo P. Mind the gap: an intervention to support caregivers with a new autism spectrum disorder diagnosis is feasible and acceptable. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020;6(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s40814-020-00662-6.
    1. Kretzmann M, Locke J, Kasari C. Remaking Recess: The Manual. Unpublished manuscript funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UA3 MC 11055 (AIR-B). 2012;
    1. Kretzmann M, Shih W, Kasari C. Improving peer engagement of children with autism on the school playground: a randomized controlled trial. Behav. 2015;46:20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2014.03.006.
    1. Shih W, Dean M, Kretzmann M, Locke J, Senturk D, Mandell D, Smith T, Kasari C, AIR-B Network Remaking Recess intervention for improving peer interactions at school for children with autism spectrum disorder: Multisite randomized trial. School Psych Rev. 2019;48:133–144. doi: 10.17105/SPR-2017-0113.V48-2.
    1. Shogren KA, Burke KM, Antosh A, Wehmeyer ML, LaPlante T, Shaw LA, Raley SK. Impact of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on self-determination and goal attainment in adolescents with intellectual disability. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2019;30(1):22–34. doi: 10.1177/1044207318792178.
    1. Raley SK, Shogren KA, Rifenbark GG, Lane KL, Pace JR. The impact of the self-determined learning model of instruction on student self-determination in inclusive, secondary classrooms. Remedial Spec Educ. 2021;42(6):363–373. doi: 10.1177/0741932520984842.
    1. Shogren KA, Wehmeyer ML, Palmer SB, Rifenbark GG, Little TD. Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. J Spec Educ. 2015;48:256–267. doi: 10.1177/0022466913489733.
    1. Shogren KA, Palmer SB, Wehmeyer ML, Williams-Diehm K, Little TD. Effect of intervention with the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on access and goal attainment. Remedial Spec Educ. 2012;33:320–330. doi: 10.1177/0741932511410072.
    1. Hagiwara M, Shogren KA, Leko ML. Reviewing research on the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction: mapping the terrain and charting a course to promote adoption and use. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2017;1:3–13. doi: 10.1007/s41252-017-0007-7.
    1. Wehmeyer ML, Palmer SB, Agran M, Mithaug DE, Martin JE. Promoting causal agency: the self-determined learning model of instruction. Except Child. 2000;66:439–453. doi: 10.1177/001440290006600401.
    1. Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics (2022, May 2). Rural education in America.
    1. Laumann E, Marsden P, Prensky D. The boundary specification problem in network analysis. Applied network analysis: a methodological introduction. 1983. p. 61.
    1. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
    1. Saldana L. The stages of implementation completion for evidence-based practice: protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Sci. 2014;9:43. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-43.
    1. Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA, Farahnak LR. Assessing the organizational context for EBP implementation: the development and validity testing of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) Implementation Sci. 2014;9(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0157-1.
    1. Singh NN, Curtis WJ, Ellis CR, Nicholson MW, Villani TM, Wechsler HA. Psychometric analysis of the family empowerment scale. J Emot Behav Disord. 1995;3(2):85–91. doi: 10.1177/106342669500300203.
    1. Busner J, Targum SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry. 2007;4(7):28.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다