Provider perceptions of the anticipated benefits, barriers, and facilitators associated with implementing a stepped care model for the delivery of addiction and mental health services in New Brunswick: a mixed-methods observational implementation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providers who work within addiction and mental health (A&MH) services in New Brunswick (NB), Canada completed training in Stepped Care 2.0 and One-at-a-Time (OAAT) therapy as part of a provincial practice change initiative to implement a provincial stepped care model. The present study aimed to identify: (1) the perceived acceptability and feasibility of the SC2.0 model; (2) the perceived benefits, barriers, and facilitators to implement SC2.0 in practice; and (3) perceived impacts on clinical practice. METHODS: This is a mixed-methods observational implementation study. Quantitative surveys were completed after training courses. Open-ended responses were collected after completion of SC2.0 training. A subset of providers who completed surveys were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to describe results from surveys. Open-ended responses and semi-structured interviews were compiled and thematically synthesized in an iterative process using a grounded theory framework. Quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated to build an in-depth understanding of provider perceptions. RESULTS: 316 providers completed surveys and responded to open-ended prompts. Interviews were completed with 28 of those providers. SC2.0 was deemed to be acceptable, a suitable fit, and feasible to implement. Perceived benefits included: (1) timely access to services; (2) increased practice efficiency; and (3) increased availability of services. Perceived barriers included: (1) insufficient availability of resources to populate a SC2.0 continuum of care; (2) provider complacency with their current practice; and (3) difficulty for clients to accept and adjust to change. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying the perceived benefits, facilitators, and barriers to adopting stepped care in practice can lead to targeted implementation strategies and the collection of data that can inform continuous improvement cycles.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".