A Statewide Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Three Models for Implementing Parent Child Interaction Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: This study (NIMH RO1 MH095750; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02543359) evaluated the effectiveness of three training models to implement a well-established evidence-based treatment, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). METHOD: Fifty licensed outpatient clinics, including 100 clinicians, 50 supervisors, and 50 administrators were randomized to one of three training conditions: 1) Learning Collaborative (LC), 2) Cascading Model (CM) or 3) Distance Education (DE). Data to assess training and implementation outcomes were collected at 4 time points coinciding with the training period: baseline, 6- (mid), 12- (post), and 24-months (1-year follow-up). RESULTS: Multi-level hierarchical linear growth modeling was used to examine changes over time in training outcomes. Results indicate that clinicians in CM were more likely to complete training, reported high levels of training satisfaction and better learning experiences compared to the other training conditions. However, supervisors in the LC condition reported greater learning experiences, higher levels of knowledge, understanding of treatment, and satisfaction compared to supervisors in other conditions. Although clinicians and supervisors in the DE condition did not outperform their counterparts on any outcomes, their performance was comparable to both LC and CM in terms of PCIT use, supervisor perceived acceptability, feasibility, system support, and clinician satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Through the use of a randomized controlled design and community implementation, this study contributes to the current understanding of the impact of training design on implementation of PCIT. Results also indicate that although in-person training methods may produce more positive clinician and supervisor outcomes, training is not a one-size-fits-all model, with DE producing comparable results on some variables.

Protocol for a statewide randomized controlled trial to compare three training models for implementing an evidence-based treatment.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are available for treating childhood behavioral health challenges. Despite EBTs' potential to help children and families, they have primarily remained in university settings. Little empirical evidence exists regarding how specific, commonly used training and quality control models are effective in changing practice, achieving full implementation, and supporting positive client outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: This study (NIMH RO1 MH095750; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02543359), which is currently in progress, will evaluate the effectiveness of three training models (Learning Collaborative (LC), Cascading Model (CM), and Distance Education (DE)) to implement a well-established EBT , Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, in real-world, community settings. The three models differ in their costs, skill training, quality control methods, and capacity to address broader implementation challenges. The project is guided by three specific aims: (1) to build knowledge about training outcomes, (2) to build knowledge about implementation outcomes, and (3) to test the differential impact of training clinicians using LC, CM, and DE models on key client outcomes. Fifty (50) licensed psychiatric clinics across Pennsylvania were randomized to one of the three training conditions: (1) LC, (2) CM, or (3) DE. The impact of training on practice skills (clinician level) and implementation/sustainment outcomes (clinic level) are being evaluated at four timepoints coinciding with the training schedule: baseline, 6 (mid), 12 (post), and 24 months (1 year follow-up). Immediately after training begins, parent-child dyads (client level) are recruited from the caseloads of participating clinicians. Client outcomes are being assessed at four timepoints (pre-treatment, 1, 6, and 12 months after the pre-treatment). DISCUSSION: This proposal builds on an ongoing initiative to implement an EBT statewide. A team of diverse stakeholders including state policy makers, payers, consumers, service providers, and academics from different, but complementary areas (e.g., public health, social work, psychiatry), has been assembled to guide the research plan by incorporating input from multidimensional perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02543359.