ArticleImplementation research and practice
Scaling up: Facilitators, barriers, and EDI considerations for clinical implementation of a stepped-care early mental health parenting program (I-InTERACT-North).
Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinicians, health care organizations, and families demand better and more accessible children's mental health services with greater patient engagement. The I-InTERACT-North program was developed for children following traumatic brain injury and adapted for a transdiagnostic neurological and neurodevelopmental focus, with a recent transition to a stepped-care model. To date, the program has been exclusively provided within research studies; however, demand for its clinical use is growing. Implementation frameworks provide essential guidance regarding facilitators and barriers of clinical implementation under real-world conditions. Similarly, intersectionality evaluation can provide insights to develop equitable and inclusive health care practices. Informed by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research 2.0 (CFIR) and recent intersectionality supplement, the objectives were to examine the perspectives of parents/caregivers and clinical partners involved in the I-InTERACT-North program to identify (a) facilitators and barriers to inform the scale and spread of the program, and (b) equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) considerations to integrate in future clinical implementation. Method: This study used a qualitative descriptive design with focus group methodology. Participants included parents/caregivers and clinical partners. Semi-structured focus groups were conducted virtually. Focus group data were coded inductively and deductively using CFIR 2.0. The team reflected on intersectionality in the data, coding results, and broader context of the program's history. Results: Positive perceptions of the innovation's relevance and adaptability were echoed across focus groups. Prominent facilitators included the program's adaptability, personalized, flexible format, and knowledge dissemination. Barriers included geography, technological accessibility, and workflow, with participants stressing the importance of tailoring to culture, language, and neurodiversity. Feedback from participants aligned with 10 reflective prompts highlighted within the CFIR intersectionality supplement pertaining to families' intersecting categories, diverse intervention experiences, and information access. Conclusions: Identified facilitators of I-InTERACT-North implementation extended across program knowledge sharing and recruitment. Recommendations included directions for clinical and system integration to facilitate scalability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.