A Longitudinal Analysis of Trajectories and Predictors of Fidelity Using the SafeCare Parenting Model

Matthew Jay Lyons, Daniel J. Whitaker, Shannon Self-Brown, Erin A. Weeks
{"title":"A Longitudinal Analysis of Trajectories and Predictors of Fidelity Using the SafeCare Parenting Model","authors":"Matthew Jay Lyons,&nbsp;Daniel J. Whitaker,&nbsp;Shannon Self-Brown,&nbsp;Erin A. Weeks","doi":"10.1007/s10488-023-01336-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Evidence-based practice (EBP) fidelity, understood as the extent to which a program is implemented as the developers intended, is a key implementation variable which likely relates to consumer outcomes. However, studies that track fidelity longitudinally and at large scale are uncommon, and finding reliable predictors of fidelity has proven to be a complex challenge. Further, attitudes toward EBP are a potentially important predictor of fidelity, but results across the literature have been mixed. The purpose of the present study is to use data from the ongoing implementation and dissemination of the SafeCare model to better understand (1) the characteristics of SafeCare implementation fidelity trajectories, and (2) whether individual level factors predict differences in fidelity and fidelity trajectories, especially provider attitudes toward EBP. The analyses reported here include 14,778 observed fidelity sessions by 868 providers in 172 agencies. We use multilevel modeling to examine fidelity, fidelity trajectories over time, and several potential individual-level predictors of fidelity, including demographics, work history, and attitudes toward EBP. We found: (1) that SafeCare fidelity begins high at baseline (93.85% on average); (2) that SafeCare fidelity displays a statistically significant trend of positive linear growth, even among those with less positive attitudes; and (3) that positive attitudes are associated with slightly higher fidelity on average and at baseline, while negative attitudes are associated with slightly lower fidelity on average and at baseline. To our knowledge, this is the largest longitudinal analysis of EBP fidelity in a child welfare program to date, and our findings support the notion that intensive coaching supports which are titrated over time can be sufficient to ensure sustained high fidelity, at least in some cases. Further, these findings indicate that robust training and coaching processes can ensure high fidelity and fidelity growth even among providers with less positive attitudes toward EBP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":"51 2","pages":"240 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-023-01336-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) fidelity, understood as the extent to which a program is implemented as the developers intended, is a key implementation variable which likely relates to consumer outcomes. However, studies that track fidelity longitudinally and at large scale are uncommon, and finding reliable predictors of fidelity has proven to be a complex challenge. Further, attitudes toward EBP are a potentially important predictor of fidelity, but results across the literature have been mixed. The purpose of the present study is to use data from the ongoing implementation and dissemination of the SafeCare model to better understand (1) the characteristics of SafeCare implementation fidelity trajectories, and (2) whether individual level factors predict differences in fidelity and fidelity trajectories, especially provider attitudes toward EBP. The analyses reported here include 14,778 observed fidelity sessions by 868 providers in 172 agencies. We use multilevel modeling to examine fidelity, fidelity trajectories over time, and several potential individual-level predictors of fidelity, including demographics, work history, and attitudes toward EBP. We found: (1) that SafeCare fidelity begins high at baseline (93.85% on average); (2) that SafeCare fidelity displays a statistically significant trend of positive linear growth, even among those with less positive attitudes; and (3) that positive attitudes are associated with slightly higher fidelity on average and at baseline, while negative attitudes are associated with slightly lower fidelity on average and at baseline. To our knowledge, this is the largest longitudinal analysis of EBP fidelity in a child welfare program to date, and our findings support the notion that intensive coaching supports which are titrated over time can be sufficient to ensure sustained high fidelity, at least in some cases. Further, these findings indicate that robust training and coaching processes can ensure high fidelity and fidelity growth even among providers with less positive attitudes toward EBP.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用安全护理育儿模式对忠诚度的轨迹和预测因素进行纵向分析。
循证实践(EBP)的忠实度是指项目按照开发者的意图实施的程度,它是一个关键的实施变量,很可能与消费者的结果有关。然而,大规模纵向跟踪忠实度的研究并不多见,而且寻找忠实度的可靠预测因素已被证明是一项复杂的挑战。此外,对 EBP 的态度可能是忠实度的一个重要预测因素,但文献中的结果却不尽相同。本研究的目的是利用正在实施和推广的安全护理模式的数据,更好地了解(1)安全护理实施忠诚度轨迹的特征,以及(2)个体水平的因素是否能预测忠诚度和忠诚度轨迹的差异,尤其是提供者对 EBP 的态度。本文报告的分析包括对 172 家机构的 868 名医疗服务提供者的 14,778 次忠实度观察。我们使用多层次模型来研究忠实度、忠实度随时间变化的轨迹,以及忠实度的几个潜在个人层面预测因素,包括人口统计学、工作历史和对 EBP 的态度。我们发现:(1)"安全护理 "的忠实度在基线开始时很高(平均为 93.85%);(2)"安全护理 "的忠实度在统计上呈现出显著的正线性增长趋势,即使在那些态度不那么积极的人中;(3)积极的态度与平均和基线略高的忠实度相关,而消极的态度与平均和基线略低的忠实度相关。据我们所知,这是迄今为止对儿童福利项目中 EBP 保真度进行的最大规模的纵向分析,我们的研究结果支持了这样一种观点,即随着时间推移而逐渐增加的强化辅导支持足以确保持续的高保真度,至少在某些情况下是如此。此外,这些研究结果表明,即使是对 EBP 持不太积极态度的服务提供者,强有力的培训和指导过程也能确保高保真和保真度的增长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
期刊最新文献
Advancing Youth Peer Advocacy and Support Services: Responding to NASEM Consensus Report on Launching Lifelong Health by Improving Health Care for Children, Youth, and Families (2024). The Use of Feedback in Mental Health Services: Expanding Horizons on Reach and Implementation Utilization of Mental Health Counseling Services Among Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Malaysia. Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap: The Individual Placement and Support Model. Exploring Determinants of Effective Implementation of an Innovation Within Health Care: Qualitative Insights from Program Champions on Implementing One-at-a-Time Therapy Within Addictions and Mental Health Services in New Brunswick.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1