Implementing Technologies to Enhance Coordinated Specialty Care Framework: Implementation Outcomes From a Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coordinated specialty care (CSC) has demonstrated efficacy in improving outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis and individuals with first-episode psychosis. Given the limitations of scalability and staffing needs, the augmentation of services using digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) may be explored to help support CSC service delivery. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to understand the methods to implement and support technology in routine CSC and offered insights from a quality improvement study assessing the implementation outcomes of DMHIs in CSC. METHODS: Patients and clinicians including psychiatrists, therapists, and supported education and employment specialists from a clinical-high-risk-for-psychosis clinic (Center for Early Detection Assessment and Response to Risk [CEDAR]) and a first-episode-psychosis clinic (Advancing Services for Psychosis Integration and Recovery [ASPIRE]) participated in a quality improvement project exploring the feasibility of DMHIs following the Access, Alignment, Connection, Care, and Scalability framework to implement mindLAMP, a flexible and evidenced-based DMHI. Digital navigators were used at each site to assist clinicians and patients in implementing mindLAMP. To explore the differences in implementation outcomes associated with the app format, a menu-style format was delivered at CEDAR, and a modular approach was used at ASPIRE. Qualitative baseline and follow-up data were collected to assess the specific implementation outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 5 patients (ASPIRE: n=3, 60%; CEDAR: n=2, 40%) were included: 3 (60%) White individuals, 2 (40%) male and 2 (40%) female patients, and 1 (20%) transgender man, with a mean age of 19.6 (SD 2.05) years. Implementation outcome data revealed that patients and clinicians demonstrated high accessibility, acceptability, interest, and belief in the sustainability of DMHIs. Clinicians and patients presented a wide range of interest in unique use cases of DMHI in CSC and expressed variable feasibility and appropriateness associated with nuanced barriers and needs. In addition, the results suggest that adoption, penetration, feasibility, and appropriateness outcomes were moderate and might continue to be explored and targeted. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation outcomes from this project suggest the need for a patient- and clinician-centered approach that is guided by digital navigators and provides versatility, autonomy, and structure. Leveraging these insights has the potential to build on growing research regarding the need for versatility, autonomy, digital navigator support, and structured applications. We anticipate that by continuing to research and improve implementation barriers impeding the adoption and penetration of DMHIs in CSC, accessibility and uptake of DMHIs will improve, therefore connecting patients to the demonstrated benefits of technology-augmented care.
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 | 0.044 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".