Cited by 89Health Policy Implementation ScienceChild Welfare and AdoptionHealth Sciences Research and Education

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

Open access
Brown, C Hendricks, Chamberlain, Patricia, Saldana, Lisa, Padgett, Courtenay, Wang, Wei, Cruden, Gracelyn·2014·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Much 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. METHODS: Fifty-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). RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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 REGISTRATION: Trial ID: NCT00880126 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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/s13012-014-0134-8

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • The original COINS study presented a head-to-head trial of two implementation approaches; although one approach was significantly more costly, the implementation outcomes achieved were superior enough to warrant the additional resources.

    “For example, the original COINS study presented a head-to-head trial of two implementation approaches; although one approach was significantly more costly, the implementation outcomes achieved were superior enough to warrant the additional resources (91).”
  • A head-to-head randomized implementation trial compares two active, qualitatively distinct strategies to see which better implements a clinical/preventive intervention.

    “A head-to-head randomized implementation trial is a comparative effectiveness implementation trial that tests which of two active, qualitatively different implementation strategies is more successful in implementing a clinical/preventive intervention.”
  • A primary outcome for most of these designs can be a composite process and output score based on speed, quality, and quantity.

    “a primary outcome for most of these designs can be constructed as a composite process and output score, using dimensions of speed, quality and quantity (11, 25, 101).”
  • Broad systems for measuring implementation process through key milestones, quality, and quantity, such as the Stages of Implementation Completion or similar unobtrusive measures, can likely be used to measure implementation fidelity and progress in diverse conditions.

    “Nevertheless, it is likely that broad systems for measuring implementation process through key milestones, quality, and quantity, such as those identified in the Stages of Implementation Completion [86–88], or similar unobtrusive measures [89] can be used to measure implementation fidelity and progress in diverse conditions.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, C. H., Chamberlain, P., Saldana, L., Padgett, C., Wang, W., & Cruden, G.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Oregon Social Learning Center (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Brown, C Hendricks
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2014-10-14
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
134-134
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122357259
Cited by
89
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
FWCI
14.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • William T. Grant Foundation
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076158, DA023920, R01 MH0977748, R01MH097748)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA027828, P30DA023920, DA027828, DA023920, K23DA021603, P50DA035763, DA035763)
  • U.S. Children's Bureau
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, implementation strategies, child welfare, juvenile justice, child mental health, evidence-based practice adoption, implementation quality
MeSH terms
California, Child, Child Welfare, Clinical Competence, Community Health Services, Delivery of Health Care, Foster Home Care, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Ohio, Patient Care Team, Cluster Analysis, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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