Remote Training in Evidence-based Practices for Clinicians Who Work With Migrant Workers

NCT03515226 | Terminated Results

• 2 other identifiers: STUDY000042681P50MH115837-01
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 25
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This study will compare training as usual to automated training using an intelligent tutoring system in training bachelors (BA) level social workers in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). The purpose of the study is to determine if time and cost of training front line clinicians in evidence-based treatments can be shortened, and if this new training model can reduce the need for clinicians to seek advice from experts.

Conditions

Depression

Keywords

workforce development; intelligent tutoring systems

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (8)

• Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) - Goal Setting

  This is a four item measure of intervention acceptability; where each item is rated on a 1-5 scale, with 1 = not at all appropriate and 5 = very appropriate. The total scale range is 4-20. Each group will be compared on the degree they find the specific clinical skill acceptable to use after they complete the training. We administered the AIM twice asking the students to respond to the acceptability of goal setting as a clinical skill and of identifying challenges as a clinical skill. This section reports on goal setting.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

• Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) - Identifying Challenges

  This is a four item measure of intervention acceptability; where each item is rated on a 1-5 scale, with 1 = not at all appropriate and 5 = very appropriate. The total scale range is 4-20. Each group will be compared on the degree they find the specific clinical skill acceptable to use after they complete the training. We administered the AIM twice asking the students to respond to the acceptability of goal setting as a clinical skill and of identifying challenges as a clinical skill. This section reports on identifying challenges.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

• Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) - Goal Setting

  This is a four item measure of intervention appropriateness; where each item is rated on a 1-5 scale, with 1 = not at all appropriate and 5 = very appropriate. The total range for this measure is 4-20. Each group will be compared on the degree they find the specific clinical skill appropriate to use after they complete the training. We administered the IAM twice asking the students to respond to the acceptability of goal setting as a clinical skill and of identifying challenges as a clinical skill. This section reports on goal setting.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

• Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) - Identifying Challenges

  This is a four item measure of intervention appropriateness; where each item is rated on a 1-5 scale, with 1 = not at all appropriate and 5 = very appropriate. The total scale range is 4-20. Each group will be compared on the degree they find the specific clinical skill appropriate to use after they complete the training. We administered the IAM twice asking the students to respond to the acceptability of goal setting as a clinical skill and of identifying challenges as a clinical skill. This section reports on identifying challenges.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

• Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) - Goal Setting

  This is a four item measure of intervention feasibility; where each item is rated on a 1-5 scale, with 1 = not at all appropriate and 5 = very appropriate. The total scale range is 4-20. Each group will be compared on the degree they find the specific clinical skill feasible to use after they complete the training they participated in. We administered the FIM twice asking the students to respond to the feasibility of goal setting as a clinical skill and of identifying challenges as a clinical skill. This section reports on goal setting.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

• Feasibility of Intervention Measure - Identifying Challenges

  This is a four item measure of intervention feasibility; where each item is rated on a 1-5 scale, with 1 = not at all appropriate and 5 = very appropriate. The total scale range is 4-20. Each group will be compared on the degree they find the specific clinical skill feasible to use after they complete the training they participated in. We administered the FIM twice asking the students to respond to the feasibility of goal setting as a clinical skill and of identifying challenges as a clinical skill. This section reports on identifying challenges.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

• Intervention Usability Scale (IUS) - Goal Setting

  The IUS is a 10-item measure with a possible total score ranging from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate a more usable intervention. Although this measure has not yet been normed as a measure of intervention usability, the System Usability Scale upon which the IUS is based defines scores of 70 or above as indicative of acceptable usability.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

• Intervention Usability Scale (IUS) - Identifying Challenges

  The IUS is a 10-item measure with a possible total score ranging from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate a more usable intervention. Although this measure has not yet been normed as a measure of intervention usability, the System Usability Scale upon which the IUS is based defines scores of 70 or above as indicative of acceptable usability.

  This measure will be administered to participants in each training group after they complete the 25 hours of training.

Study Arms (2)

Traditional Training

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

20 hours of didactic education and training in CBT principles, depression assessment and cultural competency and 25 hours in dyad role playing of CBT manualized treatment sessions with supervision.

Behavioral: Traditional Training

ITS based training

EXPERIMENTAL

Traditional training plus the addition of an algorithmic based training computer program that trains clinicians in clinical micro-competencies.

Behavioral: ITS based training

Interventions

ITS based training BEHAVIORAL

Training using computerized adaptive training in addition to role play

ITS based training

Traditional Training BEHAVIORAL

Training using didactics and role plays

Traditional Training

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• BA level social work student
• Bilingual Spanish Speaking

You may not qualify if:

• none

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Washington: lead
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

University of Washington Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Seattle, Washington, 98105, United States

Location

Related Publications (1)

• Lyon AR, Munson SA, Renn BN, Atkins DC, Pullmann MD, Friedman E, Arean PA. Use of Human-Centered Design to Improve Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies in Low-Resource Communities: Protocol for Studies Applying a Framework to Assess Usability . JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Oct 9;8(10):e14990. doi: 10.2196/14990.

  PMID: 31599736 DERIVED

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Depression

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Behavioral Symptoms; Behavior

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Dr. Patricia Arean, Director, UW ALACRITY Center
• Organization: University of Washington, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

parean@uw.edu

206-221-8692

Study Officials

• Patricia Arean

  UWMC Psychiatry

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Brenna Renn, PhD

  UWMC Psychiatry

  STUDY DIRECTOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: Yes
• Restrictive Agreement: No

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

Model Details: Randomized clinical trial

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: March 15, 2018
• First Posted: May 3, 2018
• Study Start: June 30, 2018
• Primary Completion: June 30, 2020
• Study Completion: August 30, 2020
• Last Updated: July 26, 2022
• Results First Posted: December 1, 2021

Record last verified: 2022-07

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, CSR, ANALYTIC CODE
• Time Frame: Data for this study will be made available in January of 2021
• Access Criteria: Any interested party who wishes to use our data for research or educational purposes may contact Dr. Renn who will review the request and provide access to information requested.

Locations

US (1)