↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of two implementation strategies in 51 child county public service systems in two states: results of a cluster randomized head-to-head implementation trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Evaluation of two implementation strategies in 51 child county public service systems in two states: results of a cluster randomized head-to-head implementation trial
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0134-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Hendricks Brown, Patricia Chamberlain, Lisa Saldana, Courtenay Padgett, Wei Wang, Gracelyn Cruden

Abstract

BackgroundMuch is to be learned about what implementation strategies are the most beneficial to communities attempting to adopt evidence-based practices. This paper presents outcomes from a randomized implementation trial of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) in child public service systems in California and Ohio, including child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health.MethodsFifty-one counties were assigned randomly to one of two different implementation strategies (Community Development Teams (CDT) or independent county implementation strategy (IND)) across four cohorts after being matched on county characteristics. We compared these two strategies on implementation process, quality, and milestone achievements using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC) (Implement Sci 6(1):1¿8, 2011).ResultsA composite score for each county, combining the final implementation stage attained, the number of families served, and quality of implementation, was used as the primary outcome. No significant difference between CDT and IND was found for the composite measure. Additional analyses showed that there was no evidence that CDT increased the proportion of counties that started-up programs (i.e., placed at least one family in MTFC). For counties that did implement MTFC, those in the CDT condition served over twice as many youth during the study period as did IND. Of the counties that successfully achieved program start-up, those in the CDT condition completed the implementation process more thoroughly, as measured by the SIC. We found no significant differences by implementation condition on the time it took for first placement, achieving competency, or number of stages completed.ConclusionsThis trial did not lead to higher rates of implementation or faster implementation but did provide evidence for more robust implementation in the CDT condition compared to IND implementation once the first family received MTFC services. This trial was successful from a design perspective in that no counties dropped out, even though this study took place during an economic recession. We believe that this methodologic approach of measurement utilizing the SIC, which is comprised of the three dimensions of quality, quantity, and timing, is appropriate for a wide range of implementation and translational studies.Trial registrationTrial ID: NCT00880126 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Master 15 13%
Other 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 23%
Psychology 20 18%
Social Sciences 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 26 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,290,363
of 21,321,698 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,440
of 1,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,139
of 226,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,698 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 226,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.