Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 24;5(1):142.
doi: 10.1186/s43058-024-00686-6.

Impact of learning health systems on cross-system collaboration between youth legal and community mental health systems: a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial

Lauren O'Reilly  1 , Dayu Sun  2 , Katherine Schwartz  3 , Logan Gillenwater  3 , Allyson Dir  4 , Patrick Monahan  2 , Gregory A Aarons  5 , Lisa Saldana  6 , Zachary Adams  4 , Tamika Zapolski  4 , Leslie Hulvershorn  4 , Matthew C Aalsma  3
Affiliations

Impact of learning health systems on cross-system collaboration between youth legal and community mental health systems: a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial

Lauren O'Reilly et al. Implement Sci Commun. .

Abstract

Background: Youth involved in the legal system have disproportionately higher rates of problematic substance use than non-involved youth. Identifying and connecting legal-involved youth to substance use intervention is critical and relies on the connection between legal and behavioral health agencies, which may be facilitated by learning health systems (LHS). We analyzed the impact of an LHS intervention on youth legal and behavioral health personnel ratings of their cross-system collaboration. We also examined organizational climate toward evidence-based practice (EBP) over and above the LHS intervention.

Methods: Data were derived from a type II hybrid effectiveness trial implementing an LHS intervention with youth legal and community mental health centers (CMHCs) in eight Indiana counties. Using a stepped wedge design, counties were randomly assigned to one of three cohorts and stepped in at nine-month intervals. Counties were in the treatment phase for 18 months, after which they were in the maintenance phase. Youth legal system and CMHC personnel completed five waves of data collection (n=307 total respondents, ranging from 108-178 per wave). Cross-system collaboration was measured via the Cultural Exchange Inventory, organizational EBP climate via the Implementation Climate Scale and Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale, and intervention via a dummy-coded indicator variable. We conducted linear mixed models to examine: 1) the treatment indicator, and 2) the treatment indicator and organizational EBP climate variables on cross-system collaboration.

Results: The treatment indicator was not significantly associated with cross-system collaboration. When including the organizational EBP climate variables, the treatment indicator significantly predicted cross-system collaboration. Compared to the control phase, treatment (B=0.41, standard error [SE]=0.20) and maintenance (B=0.60, SE=0.29) phases were associated with greater cross-system collaboration output.

Conclusions: The analysis may have been underpowered to detect an effect; third variables may have explained variance in cross-system collaboration, and, thus, the inclusion of important covariates may have reduced residual errors and increased the estimation precision. The LHS intervention may have affected cross-system collaboration perception and offers a promising avenue of research to determine how systems work together to improve legal-involved-youth substance use outcomes. Future research is needed to replicate results among a larger sample and examine youth-level outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04499079. Registered 30 July 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04499079 .

Keywords: Behavioral health; Community mental health; Cross-system collaboration; Juvenile justice; Learning health system; Legal system; Mental health; Type II hybrid effectiveness implementation trial; Youth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: ADAPT was approved by the first author’s Institutional Review Board (Protocol #1910282231). All participants were consented to participate. If individuals did not consent to participation, their data were excluded from analyses. Consent for publication: All authors consent for publication. Competing interests: Gregory Aarons, PhD, serves on the editorial board for Implementation Science Communications. All other authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to submission.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
ADAPT timeline
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Consort diagram of survey participants
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Schwalbe CS. Impact of probation interventions on drug use outcomes for youths under probation supervision. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019;98:58–64.
    1. Prinz RJ, Kerns SE. Early substance use by juvenile offenders. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2003;33:263–77. - PubMed
    1. Borschmann R, Janca E, Carter A, Willoughby M, Hughes N, Snow K, et al. The health of adolescents in detention: a global scoping review. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(2):e114–26. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aarons GA, Brown SA, Hough RL, Garland AF, Wood PA. Prevalence of adolescent substance use disorders across five sectors of care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40(4):419–26. - PubMed
    1. Johnson TP, Cho YI, Fendrich M, Graf I, Kelly-Wilson L, Pickup L. Treatment need and utilization among youth entering the juvenile corrections system. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004;26(2):117–28. - PubMed

Associated data