{"title":"在医疗补助系统中,影响为自闭症青少年提供家长辅导的临床决策的因素。","authors":"Diondra Straiton, Kyle Frost, Brooke Ingersoll","doi":"10.1177/26334895231153631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Parent coaching is an evidence-based practice for young autistic children, but it is underutilized in lower-resourced community settings like the Medicaid system (Straiton et al., 2021b). Clinicians often struggle to implement parent coaching with low-income and marginalized families (Tomczuk et al., 2022), but little is known about which factors influence clinician decision making processes about providing parent coaching to this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative analysis used the framework method and thematic analysis. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework (Aarons et al., 2011) to identify factors in the clinical decision-making process that community providers use when offering parent coaching to families of Medicaid-enrolled autistic children. Interviews with 13 providers and a focus group with 13 providers were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The following themes emerged: 1) Policies drive provider task priorities and affect competing demands; 2) Providers are more likely to use parent coaching when agency leaders monitor parent coaching benchmarks, though this is rarely done; 3) Logistical factors like scheduling and treatment location affect perceived feasibility of using parent coaching; 4) Previous experience or coursework in parent coaching and/or family systems supports the quality of parent coaching implementation; 5) Provider perceptions of \"parent readiness\" are initially indicated by overt expressions of parent interest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the absence of outer-context and inner-context policies, providers have more decision-making power to offer parent coaching based on their own judgements and preferences, which may result in fewer families being offered parent coaching and increased bias related to which families are offered this service. State-, agency-, and clinician-level recommendations are provided for increasing equitable provision of this evidence-based practice for autism.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"4 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8d/f2/10.1177_26334895231153631.PMC9978664.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors that influence clinical decisions about offering parent coaching for autistic youth served within the Medicaid system.\",\"authors\":\"Diondra Straiton, Kyle Frost, Brooke Ingersoll\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26334895231153631\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Parent coaching is an evidence-based practice for young autistic children, but it is underutilized in lower-resourced community settings like the Medicaid system (Straiton et al., 2021b). Clinicians often struggle to implement parent coaching with low-income and marginalized families (Tomczuk et al., 2022), but little is known about which factors influence clinician decision making processes about providing parent coaching to this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative analysis used the framework method and thematic analysis. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework (Aarons et al., 2011) to identify factors in the clinical decision-making process that community providers use when offering parent coaching to families of Medicaid-enrolled autistic children. Interviews with 13 providers and a focus group with 13 providers were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The following themes emerged: 1) Policies drive provider task priorities and affect competing demands; 2) Providers are more likely to use parent coaching when agency leaders monitor parent coaching benchmarks, though this is rarely done; 3) Logistical factors like scheduling and treatment location affect perceived feasibility of using parent coaching; 4) Previous experience or coursework in parent coaching and/or family systems supports the quality of parent coaching implementation; 5) Provider perceptions of \\\"parent readiness\\\" are initially indicated by overt expressions of parent interest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the absence of outer-context and inner-context policies, providers have more decision-making power to offer parent coaching based on their own judgements and preferences, which may result in fewer families being offered parent coaching and increased bias related to which families are offered this service. State-, agency-, and clinician-level recommendations are provided for increasing equitable provision of this evidence-based practice for autism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8d/f2/10.1177_26334895231153631.PMC9978664.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231153631\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231153631","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:父母辅导是一种针对自闭症幼儿的循证实践,但在资源较低的社区环境中,如医疗补助系统中,它没有得到充分利用(Straiton等人,2021b)。临床医生经常难以对低收入和边缘化家庭实施家长辅导(Tomczuk et al.,2022),但对哪些因素影响临床医生为这一人群提供家长辅导的决策过程知之甚少。方法:采用框架分析法和专题分析法进行定性分析。我们使用探索、准备、实施和维持(EPIS)框架(Aarons等人,2011)来确定社区提供者在为医疗补助注册的自闭症儿童家庭提供家长辅导时使用的临床决策过程中的因素。对13名提供者的访谈和13名提供者组成的焦点小组进行了分析。结果:出现了以下主题:1)政策驱动提供商任务优先级并影响竞争需求;2) 当机构领导人监督家长辅导基准时,提供者更有可能使用家长辅导,尽管很少这样做;3) 日程安排和治疗地点等后勤因素会影响使用家长辅导的可行性;4) 以前在家长辅导和/或家庭系统中的经验或课程支持家长辅导实施的质量;5) 提供者对“父母准备就绪”的看法最初是通过父母兴趣的公开表达来表明的。结论:在缺乏外部和内部政策的情况下,提供者有更多的决策权根据自己的判断和偏好提供家长辅导,这可能会导致提供家长辅导的家庭减少,并增加与向哪些家庭提供这项服务有关的偏见。提供了州、机构和临床医生级别的建议,以增加对自闭症循证实践的公平提供。
Factors that influence clinical decisions about offering parent coaching for autistic youth served within the Medicaid system.
Background: Parent coaching is an evidence-based practice for young autistic children, but it is underutilized in lower-resourced community settings like the Medicaid system (Straiton et al., 2021b). Clinicians often struggle to implement parent coaching with low-income and marginalized families (Tomczuk et al., 2022), but little is known about which factors influence clinician decision making processes about providing parent coaching to this population.
Methods: This qualitative analysis used the framework method and thematic analysis. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework (Aarons et al., 2011) to identify factors in the clinical decision-making process that community providers use when offering parent coaching to families of Medicaid-enrolled autistic children. Interviews with 13 providers and a focus group with 13 providers were analyzed.
Results: The following themes emerged: 1) Policies drive provider task priorities and affect competing demands; 2) Providers are more likely to use parent coaching when agency leaders monitor parent coaching benchmarks, though this is rarely done; 3) Logistical factors like scheduling and treatment location affect perceived feasibility of using parent coaching; 4) Previous experience or coursework in parent coaching and/or family systems supports the quality of parent coaching implementation; 5) Provider perceptions of "parent readiness" are initially indicated by overt expressions of parent interest.
Conclusions: In the absence of outer-context and inner-context policies, providers have more decision-making power to offer parent coaching based on their own judgements and preferences, which may result in fewer families being offered parent coaching and increased bias related to which families are offered this service. State-, agency-, and clinician-level recommendations are provided for increasing equitable provision of this evidence-based practice for autism.