↓ Skip to main content

Testing the Community-Based Learning Collaborative (CBLC) implementation model: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing the Community-Based Learning Collaborative (CBLC) implementation model: a study protocol
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13033-016-0084-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rochelle F. Hanson, Sonja Schoenwald, Benjamin E. Saunders, Jason Chapman, Lawrence A. Palinkas, Angela D. Moreland, Alex Dopp

Abstract

High rates of youth exposure to violence, either through direct victimization or witnessing, result in significant health/mental health consequences and high associated lifetime costs. Evidence-based treatments (EBTs), such as Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT), can prevent and/or reduce these negative effects, yet these treatments are not standard practice for therapists working with children identified by child welfare or mental health systems as needing services. While research indicates that collaboration among child welfare and mental health services sectors improves availability and sustainment of EBTs for children, few implementation strategies designed specifically to promote and sustain inter-professional collaboration (IC) and inter-organizational relationships (IOR) have undergone empirical investigation. A potential candidate for evaluation is the Community-Based Learning Collaborative (CBLC) implementation model, an adaptation of the Learning Collaborative which includes strategies designed to develop and strengthen inter-professional relationships between brokers and providers of mental health services to promote IC and IOR and achieve sustained implementation of EBTs for children within a community. This non-experimental, mixed methods study involves two phases: (1) analysis of existing prospective quantitative and qualitative quality improvement and project evaluation data collected pre and post, weekly, and monthly from 998 participants in one of seven CBLCs conducted as part of a statewide initiative; and (2) Phase 2 collection of new quantitative and qualitative (key informant interviews) data during the funded study period to evaluate changes in relations among IC, IOR, social networks and the penetration and sustainment of TF-CBT in targeted communities. Recruitment for Phase 2 is from the pool of 998 CBLC participants to achieve a targeted enrollment of n = 150. Study aims include: (1) Use existing quality improvement (weekly/monthly online surveys; pre-post surveys; interviews) and newly collected quantitative (monthly surveys) and qualitative (key informant interviews) data and social network analysis to test whether CBLC strategies are associated with penetration and sustainment of TF-CBT; and (2) Use existing quantitative quality improvement (weekly/monthly on-line surveys; pre/post surveys) and newly collected qualitative (key informant interviews) data and social network analysis to test whether CBLC strategies are associated with increased IOR and IC intensity. The proposed research leverages an on-going, statewide implementation initiative to generate evidence about implementation strategies needed to make trauma-focused EBTs more accessible to children. This study also provides feasibility data to inform an effectiveness trial that will utilize a time-series design to rigorously evaluate the CBLC model as a mechanism to improve access and sustained use of EBTs for children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 51 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 22%
Social Sciences 25 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 7%
Arts and Humanities 5 3%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 60 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,381,416
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#543
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,834
of 343,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.