Dataset Information

Development of a Brief Pre-Implementation Screening Tool to Identify Teachers Who Are at Risk for Not Implementing Intervention Curriculum and High-Implementing Teachers.

ABSTRACT: Few questionnaires have been developed to screen for potentially poor implementers of school-based interventions. This study combines teacher characteristics, perceptions, and teaching/training experiences to develop a short screening tool that can identify potential "low-performing" or "high-performing" teachers pre-implementation. Data were gathered from 208 teachers and 4,411 students who participated in the national implementation of an evidence-based HIV intervention in The Bahamas. Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated for the detection of "low-performing" and "high-performing" teachers. The validity of the screening tool was assessed using receiver operating characteristics analysis. The School Pre-implementation Screening Tool consists of seven predictive factors: duration as teacher, working site, attendance at training workshops, training in interactive teaching, perceived importance of the intervention, comfort in teaching the curriculum, and program priority. The sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 57% in identifying "low-performing" teachers and 81% and 65% with "high-performing" teachers. The screening tool demonstrated an acceptable/good validity (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.68 for "low-performing teachers" and 0.78 for "high-performing" teachers). Our brief screening tool can facilitate teacher training and recruitment of engaged teachers in implementation of school-based interventions.

SUBMITTER: Wang B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5116286 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a Brief Pre-Implementation Screening Tool to Identify Teachers Who Are at Risk for Not Implementing Intervention Curriculum and High-Implementing Teachers.

Wang Bo B Stanton Bonita B Lunn Sonja S Patel Pooja P Koci Veronica V Deveaux Lynette L

Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education 20160709 1

Few questionnaires have been developed to screen for potentially poor implementers of school-based interventions. This study combines teacher characteristics, perceptions, and teaching/training experiences to develop a short screening tool that can identify potential "low-performing" or "high-performing" teachers pre-implementation. Data were gathered from 208 teachers and 4,411 students who participated in the national implementation of an evidence-based HIV intervention in The Bahamas. Sensiti ...[more]

PMID: 27198536

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is recommended to be implemented in primary care settings to intervene against hazardous/harmful drinking. However, studies showed that the uptake rate was low in many regions/countries. This systematic review presented current findings on the facilitators and barriers of SBI implemented by health professionals in primary care settings using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsWe included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies identified through four electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) from inception to June 2020. Included articles had to address barriers and facilitators of SBI implementation and provide sufficient details that the CFIR domains could be identified and data were abstracted using a standardized extraction form.ResultsA total of 74 studies published from 1985 to 2019 were finally analysed and summarized. The most common facilitators were knowledge and positive beliefs about SBI (characteristics of the individuals) and available resources (inner setting). In contrast, the most common barriers were cost related to implementing SBI (intervention characteristics), negative beliefs about SBI (characteristics of the individuals), and lack of self-efficacy in implementing SBI (characteristics of the individuals). It could be observed that factors related to the inner setting and characteristics of individuals were extensively studied whilst the process received the least attention.ConclusionsMost of the facilitators and barriers are modifiable. Additionally, most literature focused on various kinds of available assets to implement SBI. To promote the spread of SBI implementation, more high-quality studies on the implementation process are needed. This systematic review could serve as a reference framework for health authorities to devise strategies for improving the implementation of SBI in primary care settings.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42021258833 ).

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Caregivers of hospitalized older adults experience elevated levels of stress and are at risk of poor health outcomes. There is a lack of screening tools based on self-reported caregiver variables incorporating both protective and risk factors, for early identification of at-risk caregivers. This study reports the development of a caregiver-centric screening tool to identify risk of depression at admission and predicts 3-month risk of depression and quality of life amongst caregivers of older adults with an unplanned admission. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:This prospective cohort study was conducted in the medical wards of a tertiary-care hospital from July 2015 to May 2017. We recruited family caregivers of patients aged 65 years and above who fulfilled the following criteria: a) unplanned admission, b) not residing in nursing homes; and c) requiring assistance in activities of daily living. MEASUREMENTS:We examined 11 candidate caregiver variables (mastery, burden and nine demographic variables). Risk of depression (score ≥8 on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) depression subscale) was the primary outcome, and was assessed during the index admission. Logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors and risk scores (weights). The total risk scores were then stratified into three risk levels. Predictive validity of the screening tool was assessed using 3-months post-discharge risk of depression and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS:The study included 274 caregiver-patient dyads. The mean (SD) age of the caregivers was 59 (10) years with 33.6% caregivers screening positive for risk of depression. The final model comprised three caregiver variables: mastery, burden and education. The total risk scores ranged from 0 to 6 and showed good discrimination (AUC:0.82, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.87). Caregivers were classified into low-risk (0-1 points), intermediate-risk (2-4 points), and high-risk (5-6 points) groups, with corresponding rates of risk of depression (HADS-D≥8) of 10.7%, 44.6% and 73.3%, during admission. Relative risk rates of the intermediate- and high- risk group using the low-risk group as reference were 4.16 and 6.84 respectively. At 3-months post-discharge, the rates of caregivers at risk of depression or having poor HRQoL also increased corresponding to the three risk levels as per baseline, supporting the predictive validity of the tool. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS:The caregiver-centric tool is a novel, practical, self-administered, relatively brief caregiver-centric instrument that can be used for rapid screening and stratification of caregivers at risk of depression. Uniquely, the tool comprised of assessment of protective factor (mastery) in addition to risk factors to provide a holistic assessment of the caregiver. It can be incorporated as part of older adults' admission evaluation so that prompt intervention can be rendered to their at-risk caregivers.

Project description:Background:Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a public health framework approach used to identify and deliver services to those at risk for substance-use disorders, depression, and other mental health conditions. Primary care is the first entry to the healthcare system for many patients, and SBIRT offers potential to identify these patients early and assist in their treatment. There is a need for pragmatic "best practices" for implementing SBIRT in primary care offices geared toward frontline providers and office staff. Methods:Ten primary care practices were awarded small community grants to implement an SBIRT program in their location. Each practice chose the conditions for which they would screen, the screening tools, and how they would provide brief intervention and referral to treatment within their setting. An evaluation team communicated with each practice throughout the process, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding facilitators and barriers to SBIRT success. Using the editing method, the qualitative data were analyzed and key strategies for success are detailed for implementing SBIRT in primary care. Results:The SBIRT program practices included primary care offices, federally qualified health centers, school-based health centers, and a safety-net emergency department. Conditions screened for included alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, anxiety, child safety, and tobacco use. Across practices, 49,964 patients were eligible for screening and 36,394 pre-screens and 21,635 full screens were completed. From the qualitative data, eight best practices for primary care SBIRT are described: Have a practice champion; Utilize an interprofessional team; Define and communicate the details of each SBIRT step; Develop relationships with referral partners; Institute ongoing SBIRT training; Align SBIRT with the primary care office flow; Consider using a pre-screening instrument, when available; and Integrate SBIRT into the electronic health record. Conclusions and implications:SBIRT is an effective tool that can empower primary care providers to identify and treat patients with substance use and mental health problems before costly symptoms emerge. Using the pragmatic best practices we describe, primary care providers may improve their ability to successfully create, implement, and sustain SBIRT in their practices.

Project description:ImportanceEarly intervention for substance use is critical to improving adolescent outcomes. Studies have found promising results for Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), but little research has examined implementation.ObjectiveTo compare SBIRT implementation in pediatric primary care among trained pediatricians, pediatricians working in coordination with embedded behavioral health care practitioners (BHCPs), and usual care (UC).Design, setting, and participantsThe study is a 2-year (November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2013), nonblinded, cluster randomized, hybrid implementation and effectiveness trial examining SBIRT implementation outcomes across 2 modalities of implementation and UC. Fifty-two pediatricians from a large general pediatrics clinic in an integrated health care system were randomized to 1 of 3 SBIRT implementation arms; patients aged 12 to 18 years were eligible.InterventionsTwo modes of SBIRT implementation, (1) pediatrician only (pediatricians trained to provide SBIRT) and (2) embedded BHCP (BHCP trained to provide SBIRT), and (3) UC.Main outcomes and measuresImplementation of SBIRT (primary outcome), which included assessments, brief interventions, and referrals to specialty substance use and mental health treatment.ResultsThe final sample included 1871 eligible patients among 47 pediatricians; health care professional characteristics did not differ across study arms. Patients in the pediatrician-only (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 10.37; 95% CI, 5.45-19.74; P < .001) and the embedded BHCP (AOR, 18.09; 95% CI, 9.69-33.77; P < .001) arms had higher odds of receiving brief interventions compared with patients in the UC arm. Patients in the embedded BHCP arm were more likely to receive brief interventions compared with those in the pediatrician-only arm (AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.31-2.31; P < .001). The embedded BHCP arm had lower odds of receiving a referral compared with the pediatrician-only (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78; P < .001) and UC (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = .006) arms; odds of referrals did not differ between the pediatrician-only and UC arms.Conclusions and relevanceThe intervention arms had better screening, assessment, and brief intervention rates than the UC arm. Patients in the pediatrician-only and UC arms had higher odds of being referred to specialty treatment than those in the embedded BHCP arm, suggesting lingering barriers to having pediatricians fully address substance use in primary care. Findings also highlight age and ethnic groups less likely to receive these important services.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02408952.

Project description:Because children and adolescents are vulnerable to developing obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), classroom teachers play an important role in the early identification and intervention in students with OCD. The present study aims to explore the recognition of OCD, general knowledge about this disorder, implications in the classroom, and stigmatizing attitudes among teachers, as well as the effectiveness of a brief educational intervention about OCD. Participants (n = 95; mean age = 43. 29 years old; 64.3% female) were primary and secondary school teachers who were randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group. All of them completed a set of self-report questionnaires, read an educational fact sheet (either about OCD in the experimental group or about a healthy diet in the control group), and again completed the questionnaires. Results show that prior to the intervention, most of the teachers identified the contamination and order OCD symptoms described in a vignette as specific to OCD (82.1%) and would recommend talking about the problem (98.9%) and seeking help (94.7%). However, only a few (36.8%) knew about the most effective OCD treatments or identified compulsions as a main OCD symptom (33%). Moreover, only about half of the teachers correctly identified OCD's possible interference in classroom routines, such as delays to achieve perfection or concentration problems, and strategies for dealing with OCD, such as continuing with the class rhythm. Stigma levels were from low to moderate. After the brief educational intervention, participants in the experimental group increased their knowledge about OCD, improved their strategies for managing a student with OCD symptoms, and had fewer stigmatizing attitudes associated with pity (p < 0.05). These changes were not observed in the control group. We can conclude that this brief and easy-to-administer intervention is an effective educational intervention to significantly improve teachers' knowledge and attitudes, at least in the short-term. These results are especially relevant because OCD is associated with high interference and long delays in seeking treatment, and teachers have a unique opportunity to help with prevention, early identification, and recommending an adequate intervention for OCD.

Project description:Aim This project evaluated the effectiveness of screening brief intervention and referral for treatment (SBIRT) in primary care in Abu Dhabi to manage patients with problematic substance use. This study aimed to determine whether: (i) training primary care physicians on the SBIRT model increased the identification of patients using substances at a harmful, hazardous or dependent level; (ii) training improved physicians' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs in self-efficacy in managing substance use.BackgroundSubstance use is increasing in the United Arab Emirates yet there has been no formal primary care intervention. SBIRT was considered an appropriate model given its endorsement by the WHO.MethodsA controlled trial (two intervention and two matched control clinics) was undertaken. Intervention physicians (n=17) were trained in SBIRT. Physicians' attitudes were measured before and after training and eight months after implementation. Target recruitment was 900 patients. Inclusion criteria were: consenting UAE national, ⩾18 years, using the 'walk-in' primary care clinic. Patient data was collected by physician-administered questionnaire. Prevalence of drug use was measured through electronic patient records. Findings A total of 906 patients were screened, aged 18-82 years and 496 (55%) were female. Of these, 5.7% reported use of amphetamine, 3.9% alcohol, 3.3%, sedatives, 1.7% opioids and 1.1% cannabis. In all, 21 people had a moderate/high ASSIST score and received a brief intervention, but did not attend follow-up; three high-risk people were referred for specialist treatment. Physicians' attitudes towards patients with problematic substance use and providing treatment improved after training, but returned to pre-training levels after eight months. Including the 21 individuals identified from intervention screening, the prevalence of substance use increased to 0.208% (95% CI 0.154-0.274), significantly higher than in control clinics (P<0.001). In conclusion, physicians were generally positive towards SBIRT and SBIRT increased recorded drug related conditions at a practice level. However, poor patient attendance at follow-up requires investigation.

Dataset Information

Development of a Brief Pre-Implementation Screening Tool to Identify Teachers Who Are at Risk for Not Implementing Intervention Curriculum and High-Implementing Teachers.

Publications

Development of a Brief Pre-Implementation Screening Tool to Identify Teachers Who Are at Risk for Not Implementing Intervention Curriculum and High-Implementing Teachers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure