2 - (SYM 33) Provider Perception of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Implementing a Transdiagnostic Intervention in a Youth Partial Hospitalization Setting: A Mixed Methods Evaluation

Over 20% of adolescents report experiencing a lifetime mental health disorder with severe impairment or distress (Merikangas et al., 2010), and an increasing number of these youth receive treatment in acute or intensive mental health settings (e.g., partial hospitalization (PHP), intensive outpatient; Brent et al., 2013). However, there has been very little research on both effectively adapting EBTs developed for lower-intensity outpatient settings and implementing them to ensure feasibility, utility, and integration with clinical workflows. The aim of this project was to evaluate determinants of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of implementing an evidence-based, transdiagnostic intervention in acute mental health settings and identify further targets for adaptation.

Participants were 17 clinical providers (e.g., behavioral health specialists, licensed master’s level clinicians) who completed a survey about the implementation of the Unified Protocols for Children and Adolescents (UP-C/A; Ehrenreich-May et al., 2017) across two different PHP sites. Providers had been working in direct clinical services an average of 13.7 years (SD = 13.4, Range 2 – 40) and were 88.2% cisgender female and 82.4% White. Providers completed the Acceptability of Intervention, Intervention Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Intervention Measures (Weiner et al., 2017), and provided written responses to questions about the UP-C/A implementation. Qualitative data was coded using both a deductive and inductive (CFIR determinants; Damschroder et al. 2022) approach. A mixed methods approach was used to integrate data; qualitative data was used to expand upon and explain quantitative data.

Overall, ratings of acceptability (M = 4.47, SD = 0.59) , appropriateness (M = 4.51, SD = 0.54) , and feasibility (M = 4.51, SD = 0.55) were high. Aspects of intervention design (e.g., low complexity, observability, adaptability) contributed to high levels of acceptability. Barriers to perceived appropriateness and feasibility included perceived needs and capabilities of some intervention recipients not matching the intervention (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, lower cognitive abilities, psychosis) and perceived deficiencies in leadership and training supports. The discussion will describe the process for how this data was used to implement additional adaptations, including improving parent materials to increase transfer of skills to the home environment and enhancing processes for providing implementation feedback from leadership.