Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05679154

Team-Focused Implementation in Child Advocacy Centers

Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) are well-positioned to identify children at risk for mental health problems and to facilitate access to evidence-based treatments. Implementation of standardized mental health screening and referral protocols may improve recognition of mental health needs and facilitate treatment engagement. Implementation strategies that improve teamwork may enhance implementation outcomes in team-based settings like CACs. In this study, CACs will implement the Care Process Model for Pediatric Traumatic Stress (CPM-PTS) and be randomized to either team-focused implementation or standard implementation. The study aims are to evaluate the feasibility of team-focused implementation and the effect of the CPM-PTS on caregiver understanding of mental health needs and intentions to initiate treatment.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Mental Health Issue Teamwork

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213, United States

About this study

This study is a pilot cluster randomized controlled hybrid Type II effectiveness-implementation trial in 4 rural Child Advocacy Centers. All CACs will implement the Care Process Model for Pediatric Traumatic Stress (CPM-PTS), a mental health screening and referral protocol. CACs will be randomized to team-focused implementation (n = 2) or standard implementation (n = 2). The study is designed to evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of team-focused implementation strategies. It will also test the effect of the CPM-PTS on caregiver understanding of mental health needs and intentions to initiate treatment. Mixed methods will be used to evaluate the feasibility of team-focused implementation, test the effect of team strategies on teamwork, and assess implementation outcomes. Administrative data collected anonymously from caregivers will be used to test the effectiveness of the CPM-PTS.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Individuals at least 18 years of age who are members of the multidisciplinary team at the participating CACs.

Exclusion criteria

  • Under 18 years old.

Treatment and study plan

Team-focused Implementation

Behavioral

CACs randomized to the experimental condition (n = 2) will participate in team-focused implementation. They will receive team development interventions (e.g., goal-setting exercise, training in communication skills) integrated with standard CPM-PTS training and technical assistance strategies.

Standard implementation

Behavioral

CACs randomized to the comparison condition (n = 2) will receive standard training and technical assistance strategies to support CPM-PTS implementation. They will receive CPM-PTS materials (e.g., manual, REDCap surveys, referral protocols), an interactive training, and six months of technical assistance.

Primary outcomes

  1. Acceptability of team-focused implementation assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Baseline

    Perceived acceptability of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  2. Acceptability of team-focused implementation assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 6

    Perceived acceptability of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  3. Acceptability of team-focused implementation assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 12

    Perceived acceptability of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  4. Appropriateness of team-focused implementation assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure

    Time frame: Baseline

    Perceived appropriateness of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  5. Appropriateness of team-focused implementation assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure

    Time frame: Month 6

    Perceived appropriateness of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  6. Appropriateness of team-focused implementation assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure

    Time frame: Month 12

    Perceived appropriateness of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  7. Feasibility of team-focused implementation assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Baseline

    Perceived feasibility of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  8. Feasibility of team-focused implementation assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 6

    Perceived feasibility of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  9. Feasibility of team-focused implementation assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 12

    Perceived feasibility of team-focused implementation will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in team functioning from baseline to 6-month follow-up

    Time frame: Baseline, month 6

    Affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes and states will be assessed with survey items rated on Likert scales. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more adaptive team functioning (range 1-7).

  2. Change in team functioning from baseline to 12-month follow-up

    Time frame: Baseline, month 12

    Affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes and states will be assessed with survey items rated on Likert scales. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more adaptive team functioning (range 1-7).

  3. Change in team performance from baseline to 6- and 12-month follow-up

    Time frame: Baseline, month 6, month 12

    The overall quality of work done by the team will be assessed with Edmondson's (1999) Team Performance scale (5 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale). Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate better performance (range 1-7).

  4. CPM-PTS Acceptability assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 6

    Perceived acceptability of the CPM-PTS will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  5. CPM-PTS Acceptability assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 12

    Perceived acceptability of the CPM-PTS will be assessed with items from the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  6. CPM-PTS Appropriateness assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure

    Time frame: Month 6

    Perceived appropriateness of the CPM-PTS will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  7. CPM-PTS Appropriateness assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure

    Time frame: Month 12

    Perceived appropriateness of the CPM-PTS will be assessed with items from the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  8. CPM-PTS Feasibility assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 6

    Perceived feasibility of the CPM-PTS will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  9. CPM-PTS Feasibility assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure

    Time frame: Month 12

    Perceived feasibility of the CPM-PTS will be assessed with items from the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each item is rated on a 1-5 Likert scale. Scores will be averaged; higher scores indicate more positive perceptions (range 1-5).

  10. CPM-PTS Adoption

    Time frame: From start of the study for up to 12 months after CPM-PTS implementation

    Adoption will be indicated by the number of days from training to the first completed screening.

  11. CPM-PTS Reach

    Time frame: Monthly for 12 months after CPM-PTS implementation

    Reach will be indicated by screening rates (i.e., completed screenings / eligible children) and calculated for monthly and quarterly periods (possible range 0-100%).

Other outcomes

  1. Caregiver understanding of child mental health needs

    Time frame: Collected immediately after CAC visit for all caregivers served during an 18 month period (beginning 6 months before CPM-PTS implementation and continuing for 12 months after implementation)

    Caregivers will rate 1 item assessing their understanding of their child's mental health needs on a 4-point Likert scale (range 1-4) in an anonymous end of visit survey.

  2. Caregiver intention to initiate mental health services

    Time frame: Collected immediately after CAC visit for all caregivers served during an 18 month period (beginning 6 months before CPM-PTS implementation and continuing for 12 months after implementation)

    Caregivers will rate 1 item assessing their intention to initiate mental health services for their child on a 5-point Likert scale (range 1-5) in an anonymous end of visit survey.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Pittsburgh

Other

Collaborators

  • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

Registry information

Official study title

Implementation of the Care Process Model for Pediatric Traumatic Stress in Rural Child Advocacy Centers: A Pilot Test of Team-focused Implementation

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2025
Study completion
2025
First posted
Jan 10, 2023
Registry last updated
Oct 28, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.