Testing a Motivational Interviewing Implementation Intervention in Adolescent HIV Clinics: Protocol for a Type 3, Hybrid Implementation-Effectiveness Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motivational interviewing (MI) has been shown to effectively improve self-management for youth living with HIV (YLH) and has demonstrated success across the youth HIV care cascade-currently, the only behavioral intervention to do so. Substantial barriers prevent the effective implementation of MI in real-world settings. Thus, there is a critical need to understand how to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs), such as MI, and promote behavior change in youth HIV treatment settings as risk-taking behaviors peak during adolescence and young adulthood. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN) protocol of a tailored MI (TMI) implementation-effectiveness trial (ATN 146 TMI) to scale up an EBP in multidisciplinary adolescent HIV settings while balancing flexibility and fidelity. This protocol is part of the Scale It Up program described in this issue. METHODS: This study is a type 3, hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial that tests the effect of TMI on fidelity (MI competency and adherence to program requirements) while integrating findings from two other ATN protocols described in this issue-ATN 153 Exploration, Preparations, Implementation, Sustainment and ATN 154 Cascade Monitoring. ATN 153 guides the mixed methods investigation of barriers and facilitators of implementation, while ATN 154 provides effectiveness outcomes. The TMI study population consists of providers at 10 adolescent HIV care sites around the United States. These 10 clinics are randomly assigned to 5 blocks to receive the TMI implementation intervention (workshop and trigger-based coaching guided by local implementation teams) utilizing the dynamic wait-listed controlled design. After 12 months of implementation, a second randomization compares a combination of internal facilitator coaching with the encouragement of communities of practice (CoPs) to CoPs alone. Participants receive MI competency assessments on a quarterly basis during preimplementation, during the 12 months of implementation and during the sustainment period for a total of 36 months. We hypothesize that MI competency ratings will be higher among providers during the TMI implementation phase compared with the standard care phase, and successful implementation will be associated with improved cascade-related outcomes, namely undetectable viral load and a greater number of clinic visits among YLH. RESULTS: Participant recruitment began in August 2017 and is ongoing. As of mid-May 2018, TMI has 150 active participants. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol describes the underlying theoretical framework, study design, measures, and lessons learned for TMI, a type 3, hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial, which has the potential to scale up MI and improve patient outcomes in adolescent HIV settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03681912; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03681912 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/754oT7Khx). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11200.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".