|
Bruns, E. J., Lee, K., Davis, C., Pullmann, M. D., Ludwig, K., Sander, M., Holm‐Hansen, C., Hoover, S., & McCauley, E. M. (2023). Effectiveness of a Brief Engagement, Problem‐Solving, and Triage Strategy for High School Students: Results of a Randomized Study. Prevention Science, 1-14. Evidence Rating: Emerging Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): School-Based Health Centers, Teacher/Staff Training, Assessment, Intervention Description: The core BRISC strategy is implemented in four sessions. In session 1, the SMHP engages the student, assesses current functioning using brief standardized assessment measures, and identifies “top problems” (Weisz et al., 2011). The student is asked to informally monitor a behavior related to one of their top problems (e.g., time spent with friends, days feeling “blue,” number of disputes with parents). In session 2, the SMHP introduces a structured problem-solving framework, and the student chooses a “top problem” to address. Using a structured approach, the student outlines a concrete goal, brainstorms possible steps toward this goal, identifies a specific step, and troubleshoots barriers (D'Zurilla & Nezu, 2010). In session 3, a set of evidence-based, skill-based elements (communication skills, stress and mood management, realistic thinking) are taught, if needed, to help modify the step tried or to identify and support the student’s next step(s). In session 4, the student and SMHP review progress and identify a “post-BRISC pathway”: (1) end treatment/problem resolved, (2) supportive monitoring by the SMHP or other school staff, (3) continued treatment from the SMHP, or (4) referral to more specialized or intensive services. SMHPs are also encouraged to refer students to supportive school-based services (e.g., tutoring, special education), if indicated. BRISC-assigned SMHPs attended a 1.5-day in-person training by two Ph.D.-level clinical psychologists that incorporated strategies (e.g., modeling, role play) found to facilitate uptake of new skills (Rakovshik & McManus, 2010). Although therapists in both conditions were already deployed full time by their agencies into the school setting, the training also reviewed how to manage the unique challenges of SBMH work as it applies to the BRISC framework (e.g., adjusting to school schedules, triaging to school and community supports). SMHPs received bi-weekly phone consultation/coaching from the trainers that included a review of adherence checklists completed by the clinician following each of their sessions, case presentations, and review of and feedback on their BRISC implementation. Intervention Results: Services Received: Student Report - Results of analyses of longitudinal service receipt as assessed via the SACA are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2 (model results with confidence intervals are available as online resource 3). There were no differences at baseline between conditions on the proportion of students receiving school-based mental health services. From baseline to 2 months, the proportion of students receiving SMH services, and the number of services received, increased for both conditions. From 2 to 6 months, the proportion of students receiving SMH and the number of SMH services decreased more for the BRISC condition. At 6 months, there were no significant differences between the groups on the proportion of students receiving SMH services, but the number of SMH services received was significantly less for BRISC. This demonstrates that BRISC was associated with increased SMH services between baseline to 2 months and decreased SMH services by 6 months. The proportion of BRISC students who used outpatient MH services significantly decreased across all time points, while the proportion of students in SAU receiving outpatient services decreased from baseline to 2 months and then increased. At 6 months, significantly fewer BRISC students received outpatient services. Clinician Report - Clinician report of client status after 4 sessions was limited to the 9 BRISC and 13 SAU SMHPs still participating in the study in the final year of the study (N=45 and N=65 students, respectively). As shown in Table 3, there was a significant difference after 4 sessions (χ2 = 18.9, p = .004), with adjusted standardized residuals indicating students in the BRISC condition were more likely than SAU to have concluded treatment with no further services planned (37.8% vs. 12.3%, RR = 3.07, RD = 0.25) and to be referred to outside MH services (15.6% vs 3.1%, RR = 5.06, RD = 0.12). SAU students were more likely to continue school-based treatment with no additional services planned (61.5% vs. 35.6%, RR = 0.58, RD = −0.26). Conclusion: This project evaluated the potential for improving the efficiency of SMH via a school-based assessment, brief intervention, and triage approach for students with socio-emotional concerns. BRISC provides a first-line intervention using consistent assessment to inform level and type of ongoing services needed in a prevention-oriented, multi-tiered delivery model. Research questions focused on feasibility, fidelity, student report of problems, and ability of BRISC to promote efficiency within SMH. We also measured a range of mental health outcomes over 6-month follow-up to evaluate whether this emphasis on efficiency compromised these outcomes compared to SMH “as usual.” SMHPs who participated in the study were predominantly outpatient clinic providers deployed to the school setting. Their training and established practice were geared to traditional, longer term supportive therapy. The structured, measurement-based, and goal-oriented BRISC approach represented a different way of practicing aligned with data-informed, multi-tiered frameworks used by schools. Despite the learning curve required and deviation from typical practice, SMHPs rated BRISC as feasible, acceptable, and appropriate. Importantly, the majority of SMHPs rated BRISC as easy to learn, “compatible with the school mission,” and “likely to improve students’ social, emotional, and academic success.” SMHPs delivered BRISC with fidelity; however, session 3 fidelity was lower than for other sessions. This was likely due to the complexity introduced by the option to use evidence-based treatment elements as needed. A second key finding was that SMHPs in the BRISC condition were significantly more likely (53% to 15%) to report that they had completed treatment after 4 sessions than SAU. BRISC-assigned SMHPs were also more likely to refer students to alternative and/or more intensive services. Students in the BRISC condition were also significantly more likely to report receipt of SMH at 2 months and less likely to report SMH services at 6 months. These results support the hypothesis that BRISC can promote SMH that is more efficient and better aligned with MTSS and public health frameworks. Finally, we asked whether SMHPs’ use of a brief strategy to achieve greater efficiency would compromise mental health outcomes. To the contrary, students served via BRISC showed significantly greater improvement on their self-rated top mental health problems at 2 and 6 months. Symptom and functioning measures showed significant improvement, but slopes did not differ by condition. Students served by BRISC SMHPs were less likely to receive outpatient care at 6 months. This finding could indicate that BRISC more effectively addressed students’ “top problems” to an extent that reduced their need for longer-term mental health services. Or, it could be that students in the BRISC condition felt more confident in their school-based provider to help them in the future, reducing the need for clinic-based services. Such questions will need to be examined in more in-depth research with longer follow-up. Study Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial Setting: 15 school districts in the United States (Maryland, Minnesota, Washington) Population of Focus: High school students referred to/seeking school mental health services Sample Size: 457 students Age Range: 13-18 years old (High School students) Access Abstract
|
