Is it ACT yet? real-world examples of evaluating the degree of implementation for assertive community treatment

  • Michelle P. Salyers
  • Gary R. Bond
  • Gregory B. Teague
  • Judith F. Cox
  • Mary E. Smith
  • Mary Lou Hicks
  • Jennifer I. Koop
Regular Articles

Abstract

Despite growing interest in assessment of program implementation, little is known about the best way to evaluate whether a particular program has implemented the intended service to a level that is minimally acceptable to a funding source, such as a state mental health authority. Such is the case for assertive community treatment (ACT), an evidence-based practice being widely disseminated. Using an exploratory, actuarial approach to defining program standards, this study applies different statistical criteria for determining whether or not a program meets ACT standards using the 28-item Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale. The sample consists of 51 ACT programs, 25 intensive case management programs, and 11 brokered case management programs which were compared to identify levels of fidelity that discriminated between programs, but were still attainable by the majority of ACT programs. A grading system based on mean total score for a reduced set of 21 items appeared to be most attainable, but still discriminated ACT programs from other forms of case management. Implications for setting and evaluating ACT program standards are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bond GR, Evans L, Salyers MP, et al. Measurement of fidelity in psychiatric rehabilitation.Mental Health Services Research. 2000;2:75–87.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stein LI, Test MA. An alternative to mental health treatment, I: Conceptual model, treatment program, and clinical evaluation.Archives of General Psychiatry. 1980;37:392–397.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bond GR, Drake RE, Mueser KT, et al. Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness: critical ingredients and impact on patients.Disease Management & Health Outcomes. 2001;9:141–159.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Latimer E. Economic impacts of assertive community treatment: a review of the literature.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;44:443–454.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mueser KT, Bond GR, Drake RE, et al. Models of community care for severe mental illness: a review of research on case management.Schizophrenia Bulletin. 1998;24:37–74.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drake RE, Mueser KT, Torrey WC, et al. Evidence-based treatment of schizophrenia.Current Psychiatry Reports. 2000;2:393–397.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lehman AF, Steinwachs DM, PORT Co-Investigators: At issue: translating research into practice. The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment recommendations.Schizophrenia Bulletin. 1998;24:1–10.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meisler N: Assertive community treatment initiatives: results from a survey of selected state mental health authorities.Community Support Network News. 1997;11:3–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flynn LM: Commentary.Schizophrenia Bulletin. 1998;24:30–32.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    NASHMPD Research Institute: Implementation of evidence-based services by state mental health agencies: 2001.State Profile Highlights. February 2002;2:1–4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    News & Notes: President Clinton announces an array of initiative at First White House Conference on Mental Health.Psychiatric Services. 1999;50:980–981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allness DJ, Knoedler WH:The PACT Model of Community-Based Treatment for Persons With Severe and Persistent Mental Illness: A Manual for PACT Start-Up. Arlington, Va: NAMI; 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    CARF:2000 Behavioral Standards Manual. Tucson, Ariz: CARF, the Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phillips SD, Burns BJ, Edgar ER, et al. Moving assertive community treatment into standard practice.Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:771–779.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teague GB, Bond GR, Drake RE. Program fidelity in assertive community treatment: development and use of a measure.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1998;68:216–232.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGrew JH, Bond GR, Dietzen LL, et al. Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a mental health program model.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1994;62:670–678.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McHugo GJ, Drake RE, Teague GB, et al. The relationship between model fidelity and client outcomes in the New Hampshire Dual Disorders Study.Psychiatric Services. 1999;50:818–824.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glaser R. Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes.American Psychologist. 1963;18:519–521.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke GN, Herinckx HA, Kinney RF, et al. Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care.Mental Health Services Research. 2000;2:155–164.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnsen M, Samberg L, Calsyn R, et al. Case management models for persons who are homeless and mentally ill: The ACCESS Demonstration Project.Community Mental Health Journal. 1999;35:325–346.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salyers MP, Masterton TW, Fekete DM, et al. Transferring clients from intensive case management: impact on client functioning.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1998;68:233–245.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winter JP, Calsyn RJ. The Dartmouth ACT Scale: a generalizability study.Evaluation Review. 2000;24:319–338.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bond GR, Salyers MP, Fekete DM.Illinois Assertive Community Treatment Project. Indianapolis: Indiana University — Purdue University Indianapolis; 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salyers MP, Resnick SG, Bond GR. Fidelity of New York assertive community treatment programs. Indianapolis: Indiana University — Purdue University Indianapolis; 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dixon LB, Krauss N, Kernan E. Modifying the PACT model to serve homeless persons with severe mental illness.Psychiatric Services. 1995;46:684–688.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Drake RE, McHugo GJ, Clark RE, et al. Assertive community treatment for patients with co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorder: a clinical trial.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1998;68:201–215.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Essock SM, Kontos N. Implementing assertive community treatment teams.Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1995;46:679–683.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Primm AB. Assertive community treatment. In: Breakey WR, ed.Integrated Mental Health Services: Modern Community Psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:222–237.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Santos AB, Deci PA, Lachance KR, et al. Providing assertive community treatment for severely mentally ill patients in a rural area.Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1993;44:34–39.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Teague GB, Drake RE, Ackerson TH. Evaluating use of continuous treatment teams for persons with mental illness and substance abuse.Psychiatric Services. 1995;46:689–695.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Randolph FL. Improving systems through systems integration: The ACCESS Program.American Rehabilitation. Spring 1995;21:36–37.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenheck R, Morrissey J, Lam J, et al. Service system integration, access to services, and housing outcomes in a program for homeless persons with severe mental illness.American Journal of Public Health. 1998;88:1610–1615.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenheck R, Neale M, Leaf P, et al. Multisite experimental cost study of intensive psychiatric community care.Schizophrenia Bulletin. 1995;21:129–140.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosenheck RA, Neale MS. Cost-effectiveness of intensive psychiatric community care for high users of inpatient services.Archives of General Psychiatry. 1998;55:459–466.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McGrew JH, Bond GR. Critical ingredients of assertive community treatment: judgments of the experts.Journal of Mental Health Administration. 1995;22:113–125.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goldman HH, Ganju V, Drake RE, et al. Policy implications for implementing evidence-based practices.Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:1591–1597.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peterson PD, Lippincott RC. State mental health directors' priorities for human resource development.Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1993;44:788–790.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bond GR, Becker DR, Drake RE, et al. Implementing supported employment as an evidence-based practice.Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:313–322.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Drake RE, Essock SM, Shaner A, et al. Implementing dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness.Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:469–476.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Torrey WC, Drake RE, Dixon L, et al. Implementing evidence-based practices for persons with severe mental illness.Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:45–50.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carpinello SE, Rosenberg L, Stone J, et al. New York state's campaign to implement evidence-based practices for people with serious mental disorders.Psychiatric Services. 2002;53:153–155.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fekete DM, Bond GR, McDonel EC, et al. Rural assertive community treatment: a field experiment.Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. 1998;21:371–379.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Corrigan PW, Steiner L, McCracken SG, et al. Strategies for disseminating evidence-based practices to staff who treat people with serious mental illness.Psychiatric services. 2001;52:1598–1606.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K. Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: what maters when?Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:1190–1197.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle P. Salyers
    • 1
  • Gary R. Bond
    • 2
  • Gregory B. Teague
    • 3
  • Judith F. Cox
    • 4
  • Mary E. Smith
    • 5
  • Mary Lou Hicks
    • 6
  • Jennifer I. Koop
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, LD 124Indiana University Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolis
  2. 2.Psychology at Indiana University Purdue University IndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mental Health Law and Policy in Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health InstituteUniversity of South FloridaTampa
  4. 4.NY State Office of Mental HealthAlbany
  5. 5.Department of Human ServicesOffice of Mental HealthChicago
  6. 6.Department of Human ServicesOffice of Mental HealthSpringfield
  7. 7.Department of PsychologyIndiana University Purdue University IndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations