Protocol for a multi-site case control study evaluating child and adolescent mental health service transformation in England using the i-THRIVE model
Moore, A.; Baron-Cohen, K. L.; Simes, E.; Chen, S.; Fonagy, P.
Show abstract
The National i-THRIVE Programme seeks to evaluate the impact of the NHS England-funded whole system transformation on child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). This article reports on the design for a model of implementation that has been applied in CAMHS across over 70 areas in England using the THRIVE needs-based principles of care. The implementation protocol in which this model, i-THRIVE (implementing-THRIVE), will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the THRIVE intervention is reported, together with the evaluation protocol for the process of implementation. To evaluate the effectiveness of i-THRIVE to improve care for children and young peoples mental health, a case-control design will be conducted. N = 10 CAMHS sites that adopt the i-THRIVE model from the start of the NHS England-funded CAMHS transformation will be compared to N = 10 comparator sites that choose to use different transformation approaches within the same timeframe. Sites will be matched on population size, urbanicity, funding, level of deprivation and expected prevalence of mental health care needs. To evaluate the process of implementation, a mixed-methods approach will be conducted to explore the moderating effects of context, fidelity, dose, pathway structure and reach on clinical and service level outcomes. This study addresses a unique opportunity to inform the ongoing national transformation of CAMHS with evidence about a popular new model for delivering children and young peoples mental health care, as well as a new implementation approach to support whole system transformation. If the outcomes reflect benefit from i-THRIVE, this study has the potential to guide significant improvements in CAMHS by providing a more integrated, needs-led service model that increases access and involvement of patients with services and in the care they receive.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study Protocol 95%
- Mapping young people’s journeys through mental health services: a prospective longitudinal qualitative study protocol 95%
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Implementation Science Protocol for a participatory, theory-informed implementation research programme in the context of health system strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa (ASSET-ImplementER) 95%
- Synthesizing evidence regarding community-based volunteer facilitated programs supporting integrated care transitions from hospital to home: A scoping review protocol 94%
- NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Implementing an Advance Choice Documents resource for Black African and Caribbean people with experience of compulsory psychiatric admission 97%
- Understanding the roles and experiences of mental health peer support workers in England: a qualitative study 94%
- A qualitative meta-synthesis of service users’ and carers’ experiences of assessment and involuntary hospital admissions under mental health legislations: a five-year update 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Healthcare Workers' Mental Health and Wellbeing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK: Contrasting Guidelines with Experiences in Practice 92%
- Machine Learning for Prediction of Childhood Mental Health Problems in Social Care 92%
- The mental health of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-wave cohort study 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.