Cited by 50Health Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and DevelopmentMental Health and Patient Involvement

Collaborative planning approach to inform the implementation of a healthcare manager intervention for hispanics with serious mental illness: a study protocol

Open access
Cabassa, Leopoldo J, Druss, Benjamin, Wang, Yuanjia, Lewis-Fernández, Roberto·2011·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study describes a collaborative planning approach that blends principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and intervention mapping to modify a healthcare manager intervention to a new patient population and provider group and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this modified intervention to improve the physical health of Hispanics with serious mental illness (SMI) and at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: The proposed study uses a multiphase approach that applies CBPR principles and intervention-mapping steps--an intervention-planning approach--to move from intervention planning to pilot testing. In phase I, a community advisory board composed of researchers and stakeholders will be assembled to learn and review the intervention and make initial modifications. Phase II uses a combination of qualitative methods--patient focus groups and stakeholder interviews--to ensure that the modifications are acceptable to all stakeholders. Phase III uses results from phase II to further modify the intervention, develop an implementation plan, and train two care managers on the modified intervention. Phase IV consists of a 12-month open pilot study (N = 30) to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the modified intervention and explore its initial effects. Lastly, phase V consists of analysis of pilot study data and preparation for future funding to develop a more rigorous evaluation of the modified intervention. DISCUSSION: The proposed study is one of the few projects to date to focus on improving the physical health of Hispanics with SMI and at risk for CVD by using a collaborative planning approach to enhance the transportability and use of a promising healthcare manager intervention. This study illustrates how blending health-disparities research and implementation science can help reduce the disproportionate burden of medical illness in a vulnerable population.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-6-80

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bedenheimer T Berry-Millett R Care management of patient with complex health care need: Research synthesis report, NO 9 2009 Roberto Wood Johnson Foundation 22052205
  2. Institute of Medicine Improving Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance use Conditions: Quality Chasm Series. Washington D.C 2006 20669433

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cabassa, L. J., Druss, B., Wang, Y., & Lewis-Fernández, R.
Affiliations
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Cabassa, Leopoldo J
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2011-07-26
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
80-80
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2113390423
Cited by
50
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (R25 MH080916-01A2)
  • New York State Office of Mental Health
  • Washington University in St. Louis (R25 MH080916-01A2)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (R25 MH080916-01A2)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG03113-01A2)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH080916, K24MH075867, MH076051, R01MH076051, K01MH091118, R25MH080916)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
severe mental illness, Hispanic Americans, cardiovascular disease, physical health, care managers, collaborative planning, community-based participatory research, intervention mapping, intervention adaptation, feasibility and acceptability, health disparities, community advisory board
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Protocols, Cooperative Behavior, Educational Status, Health Planning, Health Services, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, New York, Pilot Projects, Psychometrics, Severity of Illness Index, United States, Focus Groups, Risk Assessment, Case Management, Qualitative Research, Health Status Disparities, Community-Based Participatory Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review