Supervision in Community Mental Health: Understanding Intensity of EBT Focus.

The goal of the present study was to examine clinician, supervisor, and organizational factors that are associated with the intensity of evidence-based treatment (EBT) focus in workplace-based clinical supervision of a specific EBT, Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). Supervisors (n = 56) and clinicians (n = 207) from mental health organizations across Washington State completed online self-report questionnaires. Multilevel modeling (MLM) analyses were used to examine the relative influence of nested clinician and supervisor factors on the intensity of EBT focus in supervision. We found that 33% of the variance in clinician report of EBT supervision intensity clustered at the supervisor level and implementation climate was the only significant factor associated with EBT supervision intensity. While individual clinician and supervisor factors may play a role in EBT coverage in supervision, our results suggest that an implementation climate that supports EBT may be the most critical factor for improving intensity of EBT coverage. Thus, implementation efforts that address the extent to which EBTs are expected, rewarded, and supported within an organization may be needed to support greater coverage of EBT during workplace-based supervision

Supervising EBT: What Content Do Workplace-Based Supervisors Cover and What Techniques Do They Use?

Workplace-based clinical supervision in public mental health is an underutilized resource for supporting evidence- based treatments (EBTs) [1], despite the fact that supervisors may offer a cost-effective way to support clinician fidelity to EBT. Very little, however, is known about the content and techniques used by workplace-based supervisors [2]; particularly in the context of EBT implementation [3]

Objective Coding of Content and Techniques in Workplace-Based Supervision of an EBT in Public Mental Health

BACKGROUND: Workplace-based clinical supervision as an implementation strategy to support evidence-based treatment (EBT) in public mental health has received limited research attention. A commonly provided infrastructure support, it may offer a relatively cost-neutral implementation strategy for organizations. However, research has not objectively examined workplace-based supervision of EBT and specifically how it might differ from EBT supervision provided in efficacy and effectiveness trials. METHODS: Data come from a descriptive study of supervision in the context of a state-funded EBT implementation effort. Verbal interactions from audio recordings of 438 supervision sessions between 28 supervisors and 70 clinicians from 17 public mental health organizations (in 23 offices) were objectively coded for presence and intensity coverage of 29 supervision strategies (16 content and 13 technique items), duration, and temporal focus. Random effects mixed models estimated proportion of variance in content and techniques attributable to the supervisor and clinician levels. RESULTS: Interrater reliability among coders was excellent. EBT cases averaged 12.4 min of supervision per session. Intensity of coverage for EBT content varied, with some discussed frequently at medium or high intensity (exposure) and others infrequently discussed or discussed only at low intensity (behavior management; assigning/reviewing client homework). Other than fidelity assessment, supervision techniques common in treatment trials (e.g., reviewing actual practice, behavioral rehearsal) were used rarely or primarily at low intensity. In general, EBT content clustered more at the clinician level; different techniques clustered at either the clinician or supervisor level. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace-based clinical supervision may be a feasible implementation strategy for supporting EBT implementation, yet it differs from supervision in treatment trials. Time allotted per case is limited, compressing time for EBT coverage. Techniques that involve observation of clinician skills are rarely used. Workplace-based supervision content appears to be tailored to individual clinicians and driven to some degree by the individual supervisor. Our findings point to areas for intervention to enhance the potential of workplace-based supervision for implementation effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01800266 , Clinical Trials, Retrospectively Registered (for this descriptive study; registration prior to any intervention [part of phase II RCT, this manuscript is only phase I descriptive results])

Implementation Climate and Time Predict Intensity of Supervision Content Related to Evidence Based Treatment

Objective: Children infrequently receive evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health problems due to a science-to-practice implementation gap. Workplace-based clinical supervision, in which supervisors provide oversight, feedback, and training on clinical practice, may be a method to support EBT implementation. Our prior research suggests that the intensity of supervisory focus on EBT (i.e., thoroughness of coverage) during workplace-based supervision varies. This study explores predictors of supervisory EBT intensity.Methods: Participants were twenty-eight supervisors and 70 clinician supervisees. They completed a baseline survey, and audio recorded supervision sessions over 1 year. Four hundred and thirty eight recordings were coded for supervision content. We chose to explore predictors of two EBT content elements due to their strong evidence for effectiveness and sufficient variance to permit testing. These included a treatment technique (“exposure”) and a method to structure treatment (“assessment”). We also explored predictors of non-EBT content (“other topics”). Mixed-effects models explored predictors at organizational/supervisor, clinician, and session levels.Results: Positive implementation climate predicted greater intensity of EBT content coverage for assessment (coefficient = 0.82, p = 0.004) and exposure (coefficient = 0.87, p = 0.001). Intensity of exposure coverage was also predicted by more time spent discussing each case (coefficient = 0.04, p < 0.001). Predictors of greater non-EBT content coverage included longer duration of supervision sessions (coefficient = 0.05, p < 0.001) and lower levels of supervisor EBT knowledge (coefficient = −0.17, p = 0.013). No other supervisor- or clinician-level variables were significant predictors in the mixed effects models.Conclusion: This was the first study to explore multi-level predictors of objectively coded workplace-based supervision content. Results suggest that organizations that expect, support and reward EBT are more likely to have greater intensity of EBT supervision coverage, which in turn may positively impact clinician EBT fidelity and client outcomes. There was evidence that supervisor knowledge of the EBT contributes to greater coverage, although robust supervisor and clinician factors that drive supervision are yet to be identified. Findings highlight the potential effectiveness of implementation strategies that simultaneously address organizational implementation climate and supervisor practices. More research is needed to identify mechanisms that support integration of EBT into supervision

Consumer perspectives on acceptability of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy in Tanzania and Kenya: A mixed methods study

Background There is a substantial mental health treatment gap globally. Increasingly, mental health treatments with evidence of effectiveness in western countries have been adapted and tested in culturally and contextually distinct countries. Findings from these studies have been promising, but to better understand treatment outcome results and consider broader scale up, treatment acceptability needs to be assessed and better understood. This mixed methods study aimed to examine child and guardian acceptability of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) in two regions in Tanzania and Kenya and to better understand how TF-CBT was perceived as helpful for children and guardians. Methods Participants were 315 children (7–13), who experienced the death of one or both parents and 315 guardians, both of whom participated in TF-CBT as part of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Tanzania and Kenya. The study used mixed methods, with quantitative evaluation from guardian perspective (N=315) using the Treatment Acceptability Questionnaire (TAQ) and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8). Acceptability was assessed qualitatively from both guardian and child perspectives. Qualitative evaluation involved analysis using stratified selection to identify 160 child and 160 guardian interviews, to allow exploration of potential differences in acceptability by country, setting (urban/rural), and youth age (younger/older). Results Guardians reported high acceptability on the TAQ and, using an interpretation guide from U.S.-based work, medium acceptability on the CSQ-8. Guardians and children noted high acceptability in the qualitative analysis, noting benefits that correspond to TF-CBT’s therapeutic goals. Analyses exploring differences in acceptability yielded few differences by setting or child age but suggested some potential differences by country. Conclusion Quantitative and qualitative data converged to suggest high acceptability of TF-CBT from guardian and child perspectives in Tanzania and Kenya. Findings add to accumulating evidence of high TF-CBT acceptability from Zambia and other countries (United States, Norway, Australia). Plain Language Summary: Evidence-based treatments have been shown to be effective in countries and regions that are contextually and culturally distinct from where they were developed. But, perspectives of consumers on these treatments have not been assessed regularly or thoroughly. We used open-ended questions and rating scales to assess guardian and youth perspectives on a group-based, cognitive behavioral treatment for children impacted by parental death, in regions within Tanzania and Kenya. Our findings indicate that both guardians and youth found the treatment to be very acceptable. Nearly all guardians talked about specific benefits for the child, followed by benefits for the family and themselves. Eighty percent of youth mentioned benefits for themselves and all youth said they would recommend the program to others. Benefits mentioned by guardians and youth corresponded to treatment goals (improved mood/feelings or behavior, less distress when thinking about the parent/s’ death). Both guardians and children named specific aspects of the treatment that they liked and found useful. Dislikes and challenges of the treatment were less frequently mentioned, but point to areas where acceptability could be further improved. Recommendations from participants also offer areas where acceptability could be improved, namely guardians’ recommendation that the treatment also address non-mental health needs and offer some follow-up or opportunity to participate in the program again. Our study provides an example of how to assess acceptability and identify places to further enhance acceptability

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Supervision in Community Mental Health: Understanding Intensity of EBT Focus

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2018The goal of the present study was to examine clinician, supervisor, and organizational factors that are associated with the intensity of evidence-based treatment (EBT) focus in workplace-based clinical supervision of a specific EBT, Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). Supervisors (n = 56) and clinicians (n = 207) from mental health organizations across Washington State completed online self-report questionnaires. Multilevel modeling (MLM) analyses were used to examine the relative influence of nested clinician and supervisor factors on the intensity of EBT focus in supervision. We found that 33% of the variance in clinician report of EBT supervision intensity clustered at the supervisor level and implementation climate was the only significant factor associated with EBT supervision intensity. While individual clinician and supervisor factors may play a role in EBT coverage in supervision, our results suggest that an implementation climate that supports EBT may be the most critical factor for improving intensity of EBT coverage. Implementation efforts that address the extent to which EBTs are expected, rewarded, and supported within an organization may be needed to support greater coverage of EBT during workplace-based supervision

Implementation Climate and Time Predict Intensity of Supervision Content Related to Evidence Based Treatment

Objective: Children infrequently receive evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health problems due to a science-to-practice implementation gap. Workplace-based clinical supervision, in which supervisors provide oversight, feedback, and training on clinical practice, may be a method to support EBT implementation. Our prior research suggests that the intensity of supervisory focus on EBT (i.e., thoroughness of coverage) during workplace-based supervision varies. This study explores predictors of supervisory EBT intensity. Methods: Participants were twenty-eight supervisors and 70 clinician supervisees. They completed a baseline survey, and audio recorded supervision sessions over 1 year. Four hundred and thirty eight recordings were coded for supervision content. We chose to explore predictors of two EBT content elements due to their strong evidence for effectiveness and sufficient variance to permit testing. These included a treatment technique ( exposure ) and a method to structure treatment ( assessment ). We also explored predictors of non-EBT content ( other topics ). Mixed-effects models explored predictors at organizational/supervisor, clinician, and session levels. Results: Positive implementation climate predicted greater intensity of EBT content coverage for assessment (coefficient = 0.82, p = 0.004) and exposure (coefficient = 0.87, p = 0.001). Intensity of exposure coverage was also predicted by more time spent discussing each case (coefficient = 0.04, p \u3c 0.001). Predictors of greater non-EBT content coverage included longer duration of supervision sessions (coefficient = 0.05, p \u3c 0.001) and lower levels of supervisor EBT knowledge (coefficient = -0.17, p = 0.013). No other supervisor- or clinician-level variables were significant predictors in the mixed effects models. Conclusion: This was the first study to explore multi-level predictors of objectively coded workplace-based supervision content. Results suggest that organizations that expect, support and reward EBT are more likely to have greater intensity of EBT supervision coverage, which in turn may positively impact clinician EBT fidelity and client outcomes. There was evidence that supervisor knowledge of the EBT contributes to greater coverage, although robust supervisor and clinician factors that drive supervision are yet to be identified. Findings highlight the potential effectiveness of implementation strategies that simultaneously address organizational implementation climate and supervisor practices. More research is needed to identify mechanisms that support integration of EBT into supervision

Objective Coding of Content and Techniques in Workplace-based Supervision of an EBT in Public Mental Health

Background Workplace-based clinical supervision as an implementation strategy to support evidence-based treatment (EBT) in public mental health has received limited research attention. A commonly provided infrastructure support, it may offer a relatively cost-neutral implementation strategy for organizations. However, research has not objectively examined workplace-based supervision of EBT and specifically how it might differ from EBT supervision provided in efficacy and effectiveness trials. Methods Data come from a descriptive study of supervision in the context of a state-funded EBT implementation effort. Verbal interactions from audio recordings of 438 supervision sessions between 28 supervisors and 70 clinicians from 17 public mental health organizations (in 23 offices) were objectively coded for presence and intensity coverage of 29 supervision strategies (16 content and 13 technique items), duration, and temporal focus. Random effects mixed models estimated proportion of variance in content and techniques attributable to the supervisor and clinician levels. Results Interrater reliability among coders was excellent. EBT cases averaged 12.4 min of supervision per session. Intensity of coverage for EBT content varied, with some discussed frequently at medium or high intensity (exposure) and others infrequently discussed or discussed only at low intensity (behavior management; assigning/reviewing client homework). Other than fidelity assessment, supervision techniques common in treatment trials (e.g., reviewing actual practice, behavioral rehearsal) were used rarely or primarily at low intensity. In general, EBT content clustered more at the clinician level; different techniques clustered at either the clinician or supervisor level. Conclusions Workplace-based clinical supervision may be a feasible implementation strategy for supporting EBT implementation, yet it differs from supervision in treatment trials. Time allotted per case is limited, compressing time for EBT coverage. Techniques that involve observation of clinician skills are rarely used. Workplace-based supervision content appears to be tailored to individual clinicians and driven to some degree by the individual supervisor. Our findings point to areas for intervention to enhance the potential of workplace-based supervision for implementation effectiveness