MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411460546 · doi:10.1177/26334895251346816

Scaling up: Facilitators, barriers, and EDI considerations for clinical implementation of a stepped-care early mental health parenting program (I-InTERACT-North)

2025· article· en· W4411460546 on OpenAlex
Tricia S. Williams, Angela Deotto, Andrea Greenblatt, Giulia F. Fabiano, Rivka Green, Janaksha Linga-Easwaran, Evdokia Anagnostou, Jennifer Crosbie, Elizabeth Kelley, Steven P. Miller, Rob Nicolson, Jennifer Rosart, Shari L. Wade, Melanie Barwick

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Research and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity Health NetworkBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGarry Hurvitz Centre for Brain and Mental Health
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyScalingMental health careNursingPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.693
GPT teacher head0.785
Teacher spread0.092 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it