Assessing the Feasibility of a Multicenter Transition Intervention Model Across Adolescent Secure Services in England (MOVING FORWARD): Protocol for a Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young people moving from adolescent secure inpatient units to adult care in the United Kingdom have multiple and complex needs and are more likely to experience poor transition outcomes. Poorly managed transitions can lead to enduring use and dependency on mental health services. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the feasibility of transitional care models. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to test a feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial for young people transitioning from adolescent secure services to adult-oriented settings. The overarching aim of the MOVING FORWARD study is to provide a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new transition intervention model and to inform a future full-scale cluster randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The design of the study is a 3-arm feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the MOVING FORWARD intervention against standard transition preparation conducted at 6 adolescent secure services, of which 4 units will receive the intervention and 2 will serve as controls. Eligible young people between 17-19 years, their parents/carers, and key workers will be invited to participate. Young people and parents/carers will be allocated to two conditions (young people alone and young people with a parent/carer) and will receive 4 transition preparation workshops across 6 months. Six adolescent secure hospitals will be randomly allocated, stratified by area and service type. Data will be collected at 3 time points: baseline (T0), 6-12 months postintervention (T1), and 18-24 months postbaseline (T2). Primary and secondary outcomes will be based on assessment measures and interviews conducted at T1 and T2. RESULTS: A total of 13 young people and 17 staff members have contributed to the intervention design through online advisory groups on the design of the study and important themes for transition. We have also consulted members of the public (a steering group) including 2 young people who have transitioned to the community and 2 parents/carers. Common identified themes included appropriateness of module content and support during delayed transitions. The content of the intervention will be finalized during the first 6 months of the study. Participants will be recruited over the course of 6 months. An intraclass correlation coefficient will be calculated to inform the power of the sample size for a further large-scale trial. With a sample size of 50, we will be able to estimate a dropout rate of 80% (95% CI -11% to 11%). CONCLUSIONS: This research will provide practitioners and policy makers with an evidence-based framework of how training and familiarization with the prospective transitions can yield positive outcomes. This study will test whether a psychosocial intervention can be implemented in adolescent secure hospitals. The results will identify barriers and facilitators to the proposed intervention and will enable services to reflect on the quality of transitional care delivery. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/29273.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.111 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".