↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of a multi-level implementation strategy for ASD interventions: study protocol for two linked cluster randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

10 tweeters


33 Dimensions

Readers on

176 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.
Effectiveness of a multi-level implementation strategy for ASD interventions: study protocol for two linked cluster randomized trials
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0757-2
Pubmed ID

Lauren Brookman-Frazee, Aubyn C. Stahmer


The Centers for Disease Control (2018) estimates that 1 in 59 children has autism spectrum disorder, and the annual cost of ASD in the U.S. is estimated to be $236 billion. Evidence-based interventions have been developed and demonstrate effectiveness in improving child outcomes. However, research on generalizable methods to scale up these practices in the multiple service systems caring for these children has been limited and is critical to meet this growing public health need. This project includes two, coordinated studies testing the effectiveness of the Translating Evidence-based Interventions (EBI) for ASD: Multi-Level Implementation Strategy (TEAMS) model. TEAMS focuses on improving implementation leadership, organizational climate, and provider attitudes and motivation in order to improve two key implementation outcomes-provider training completion and intervention fidelity and subsequent child outcomes. The TEAMS Leadership Institute applies implementation leadership strategies and TEAMS Individualized Provider Strategies for training applies motivational interviewing strategies to facilitate provider and organizational behavior change. A cluster randomized implementation/effectiveness Hybrid, type 3, trial with a dismantling design will be used to understand the effectiveness of TEAMS and the mechanisms of change across settings and participants. Study #1 will test the TEAMS model with AIM HI (An Individualized Mental Health Intervention for ASD) in publicly funded mental health services. Study #2 will test TEAMS with CPRT (Classroom Pivotal Response Teaching) in education settings. Thirty-seven mental health programs and 37 school districts will be randomized, stratified by county and study, to one of four groups (Standard Provider Training Only, Standard Provider Training + Leader Training, Enhanced Provider Training, Enhanced Provider Training + Leader Training) to test the effectiveness of combining standard, EBI-specific training with the two TEAMS modules individually and together on multiple implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes including provider training completion, fidelity (coded by observers blind to group assignment) and child behavior change will be examined for 295 mental health providers, 295 teachers, and 590 children. This implementation intervention has the potential to increase quality of care for ASD in publicly funded settings by improving effectiveness of intervention implementation. The process and modules will be generalizable to multiple service systems, providers, and interventions, providing broad impact in community services. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03380078 ). Registered 20 December 2017, retrospectively registered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 47 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 62 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
of 16,073,243 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
of 1,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 280,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,073,243 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 280,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them