Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

A cluster randomized Hybrid Type III trial testing an implementation support strategy to facilitate the use of an evidence-based practice in VA homeless programs

Authors: David A. Smelson, Matthew Chinman, Sharon McCarthy, Gordon Hannah, Leon Sawh, Mark Glickman

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program is one of the largest initiatives to end Veteran homelessness. However, mental health and substance use disorders continue to reduce client stability and impede program success. HUD-VASH programs do not consistently employ evidence-based practices that address co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. This paper presents a study protocol to evaluate the implementation of an evidence-based, co-occurring disorder treatment called Maintaining Independence and Sobriety Through Systems Integration, Outreach, and Networking—Veterans Edition (MISSION-Vet) in HUD-VASH using an implementation strategy called Getting To Outcomes (GTO).

Methods/design

In three large VA Medical Centers, this Hybrid Type III trial will randomize case managers and their clients by HUD-VASH sub-teams to receive either MISSION-Vet Implementation as Usual (IU—standard training and access to the MISSION-Vet treatment manuals) or MISSION-Vet implementation augmented by GTO. In addition to testing GTO, effectiveness of the treatment (MISSION-Vet) will be assessed using existing Veteran-level data from the HUD-VASH data monitoring system. This project will compare GTO and IU case managers and their clients on the following variables: (1) fidelity to the MISSION-Vet intervention; (2) proportion of time the Veteran is housed; (3) mental health, substance use, and functional outcomes among Veterans; and (4) factors key to the successful deployment of a new treatment as specified by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) model.

Discussion

This project is an important step for developing an implementation strategy to increase adoption of evidence-based practice use in VA homeless programs, and to further examine efficacy of MISSION-Vet in HUD-VASH. This project has important implications for program managers, policy makers, and researchers within the homelessness field. VA Central IRB approval for this study was granted in October 2011. The three sites were trained on MISSION-Vet and GTO in the first half of 2013. The first GTO planning meetings began after training occurred, between January 2013 and November 2013, across the three sites. The data collection—via a fidelity measure embedded into the VA Computerized Patient Record System—began as each site initiated MISSION-Vet, between April 2013 and January 2014.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01430741
Literature
1.
Shinseki E. Secretary Shinseki Details Plan to End Homelessness for Veterans. 2009. va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id = 1807. Accessed 4 Feb 2015.
2.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). Opening Doors: a federal and strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. Washington, DC: USICH; 2010.
3.
Shinseki E. HUD to provide permanent housing to nearly 8 000 homeless veterans. 2015. hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-117. 2010. Accessed 4 Feb.
4.
Smelson D, Sawh L, Kuhn J, Kane V, Ziedonis D. The MISSION-VET Treatment Manual: VA. Department of Veterans Affairs: Bedford, MA; 2011.
5.
Smelson D, Sawh L, Rodrigues S, Muñoz E, Marzilli A, Tripp J. The MISSION-VET Consumer Workbook. Department of Veterans Affairs: Bedford, MA; 2011.
6.
O’Connell M, Kasprow W, Rosenheck R. National dissemination of supported housing in the VA: model adherence versus model modification. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2010;33(4):308–19.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kertesz S, Crouch K, Milby J, Cusimano R, Schumacher J. Housing first for homeless persons with active addiction: are we overreaching? Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):495–534.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Schoenwald S, Hoagwood K. Effectiveness transportability and dissemination of interventions: what matters when? Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52(9):1190–7.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Ennett S, Ringwalt C, Thorne J, Rohrbach L, Vincus A, Simons-Rudolph A, et al. A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prev Sci. 2003;4(1):1.PubMedCrossRef
10.
McCormick L, Steckler A, McLeroy K. Diffusion of innovations in schools: a study of adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco prevention curricula. Am J Health Promo. 1995;9:210–9.CrossRef
11.
Parcel G, Eriksen M, Lovato C, Gottlieb N, Brink S, Green L. The diffusion of school-based tobacco-use prevention programs: project description and baseline data. Health Educ. 1989;4(1):111–24.
12.
Rohrbach L, D’Onofrio C, Backer T, Montgomery S. Diffusion of school-based substance abuse prevention programs. Am Behav Sci. 1996;39(7):919–34.CrossRef
13.
Rohrbach L, Graham J, Hansen W. Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: predictors of program implementation. Prev Med. 1993;22(2):237–60.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
Cividin T, Ottoson J. Linking reasons for continuing professional education participation with post-program application. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 1997;17:46–55.CrossRef
16.
Chinman M, Hunter S, Ebener P, Paddock S, Stillman L, Imm P, et al. The getting to outcomes demonstration and evaluation: an illustration of the prevention support system. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3):206–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD-VASH Vouchers. 2014. Portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD. Accessed 4 Feb 2015.
18.
Kane V. National Center of Homelessness Among Veterans. VA Homelessness Services: Washington, DC; 2010.
19.
Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Pub Health. 2004;94:416.CrossRef
20.
Curran G, Bauer M, Mittman B, Stetler C, Pyne J, Fortney J. A new ‘Hybrid’? Combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research trials. Little Rock, AR: Poster presented at the VA HSR&D field-based meeting on mental health and substance use disorders; 2010.
21.
Curran G, Bauer M, Pyne J, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Becker M. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ. 1974;2:324–508.CrossRef
23.
Susser E, Valencia E, Conover S, Felix A, Tsai W, Wyatt R. Preventing recurrent homelessness among mentally ill men: a “critical time” intervention after being discharged from a shelter. Am J Pub Health. 1997;87(2):256.CrossRef
24.
Ziedonis D, Stern R. Dual recovery therapy for schizophrenia and substance abuse. Psychiatr Ann. 2001;31:255.CrossRef
25.
Ziedonis D, Brady K. Dual diagnosis in primary care: detecting and treating both the addiction and mental illness. Med Clin North Am. 1997;81(4):1017–36.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Ziedonis D, Smelson D, Rosenthal R, Batki S, Green A, Henry R, et al. Improving the care of individuals with schizophrenia and substance use disorders: consensus recommendations. J Psychiatr Pract. 2005;11(5):315.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. London: Guildford; 2002.
28.
Marlatt G, Gordon J. Relapse prevention: maintenance strategies in addictive behavior change. New York: Guilford; 1985.
29.
Bond G, McHugo G, Becker D, Rapp C, Whitley R. Fidelity of supported employment: lessons learned from the national evidence-based practice project. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2008;31(4):300–5.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Smelson D, Losonczy M, Castles-Fonseca K, Stewart P, Kaune M, Ziedonis D. Preliminary outcomes from a booster case management program for individuals with a co-occurring substance abuse and a persistent psychiatric disorder. J Dual Diagn. 2005;3(1):47–59.CrossRef
32.
Smelson D, Williams J, Ziedonis D, Losonczy M, Kaune M. The efficacy of clonazepam for decreasing cue-elicited craving in individuals with schizophrenia and cocaine dependence: a preliminary report. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007;1:9–12.
33.
Smelson D, Kalman D, Losonczy M, Kline A, Sambamoorthi U, Hill L, et al. A brief treatment engagement intervention for individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders: results of a randomized clinical trial. Community Ment Health J. 2012;1–6.
34.
Smelson D, Kline A, Kuhn J, Rodrigues S, O’Connor K, Fisher W, et al. Wraparound treatment engagement intervention for homeless veterans with co-occurring disorders. Psychol Serv. 2013;10(2):161–7.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Fetterman D, Wandersman A. Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.
36.
37.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychol Rev. 1974;81(1):59–74.CrossRef
38.
Durlak J, DuPre E. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3):327–50.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Acosta J, Chinman M, Ebener P, Malone P, Paddock S, Phillips A, et al. An intervention to improve program implementation: findings from a two-year cluster randomized trial of assets-getting to outcomes. Implement Sci. 2013;8:87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Burkhart Q, Clifford M, Corsello M, et al. Intervening with practitioners to improve the quality of prevention: one year findings from a randomized controlled trial of the assets-getting to outcomes intervention. J Prim Prev. 2010;34:173–91. PMC3703481.CrossRef
41.
Chinman M, Tremain B, Imm P, Wandersman A. Strengthening prevention performance using technology: a formative evaluation of interactive Getting To OutcomesTM. Am J Orthopsychiatr. 2009;79:469–81. PMC2859836.CrossRef
42.
43.
Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, Seers K, Kitson A, McCormack B, Titchen A. An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice. J Clin Nurs. 2002;13:913–24.CrossRef
44.
Hannah G, McCarthy S, Chinman M. Getting to outcomes in services for homeless veterans: 10 steps for achieving results-based accountability. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans; 2010.
45.
Lesesne C, Lewis K, White C, Greem D, Duffy J, Wandersman A. Promoting science-based approaches to teen pregnancy prevention: proactively engaging the three systems of the interactive systems framework. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:379–92.PubMedCrossRef
46.
McLellan A, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992;9(3):199–213.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Jones S, Thornicroft G, Coffey M, Dunn G. A brief mental health outcome scale-reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). BR J Psyciatry. 1995;166(5):654–9.CrossRef
48.
Russell F, Glasgow RE, Thomas M, Vogt TM, Shawn M, Boles SM, et al. Am J Pub Health. 1999;89:1322–7.CrossRef
49.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2002.
51.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Metadata
Title
A cluster randomized Hybrid Type III trial testing an implementation support strategy to facilitate the use of an evidence-based practice in VA homeless programs
Authors
David A. Smelson
Matthew Chinman
Sharon McCarthy
Gordon Hannah
Leon Sawh
Mark Glickman
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0267-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): a randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation

Research

Ideal and reality: do countries adopt and follow recommended procedures in comprehensive multiyear planning guidelines for national immunization programmes?

Systematic review

Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review

Research

Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden

Research

Examining the implementation of NICE guidance: cross-sectional survey of the use of NICE interventional procedures guidance by NHS Trusts

Systematic review

Implementation of safety checklists in surgery: a realist synthesis of evidence