Disseminating TF‐CBT: A Mixed Methods Investigation of Clinician Perspectives and the Impact of Training Format and Formalized Problem‐Solving Approaches on Implementation Outcomes. Issue 6 (27th January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ascienzo, Sarah; Sprang, Ginny; Eslinger, Jessica
• Is Part Of: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. Volume 26:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1657
• Page End: 1668
• Publication Date: 2020-01-27
• Subjects: evidence‐based practice -- implementation -- Trauma‐focused Cognitive Behavioural therapy -- trauma‐focused treatment -- youth; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.13351
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1356-1294

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Trauma Focused‐Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (TF‐CBT) has been established as an evidence‐based treatment for youth with traumatic stress symptoms. The versatility of TF‐CBT in conjunction with its established effectiveness has led to its widespread dissemination. However, dissemination efforts have not always translated into sustainability, which has prompted a more thorough investigation into those factors that impact implementation and encouraged the development of strategies that promote sustainability. Toward this end, the aims of this study were to: (1) determine which components of TF‐CBT clinicians found the most difficult to implement; (2) explore clinicians' perceptions as to why these components were challenging; and (3) examine whether the use of formalized problem‐solving approaches (FPSAs) or training format was associated with implementation outcomes. Methods: A mixed methods design was utilized to analyse survey data from mental health professionals (N = 85) who received TF‐CBT training. Thematic analysis explored responses to questions concerning those TF‐CBT components respondents found most difficult to implement, while bivariate analyses helped determine whether training format or the use of FPSAs was associated with training engagement, confidence in delivering TF‐CBT, fidelity or sustainability. Results: Clinicians perceived the same three components of TF‐CBT as most difficult regardless of the type of training they received, and provider, youth, caregiver, and organizational‐related themes emerged from thematic analysis. Bivariate analyses indicated more extended training formats and the use of FPSAs were associated with greater implementation success. Conclusion: Findings suggest that perceived difficulty of TF‐CBT components did not vary by training format, but more extended formats and the use of FPSAs were associated with more favourable implementation outcomes. Implementers should consider ways to utilize FPSAs within training programs, as well as focus on content identified by clinicians as difficult, as this may assist clinicians in developing skills and managing implementation barriers.