Evaluation results
Download
1 / 27

Evaluation Results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 67 Views
  • Uploaded on

Evaluation Results. Ohio’s SAMHSA Garrett Lee Smith Grant. Evaluation of Ohio’s Infrastructure for Statewide Mental Health Check Ups. Responsivity Continuous Quality Improvement Do-Study-Reflect-Plan. School Climate. Capability (Stakeholder perception of innovation adoption).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Evaluation Results' - lars-mendoza


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Evaluation results

Evaluation Results

Ohio’s SAMHSA

Garrett Lee Smith Grant


Evaluation of ohio s infrastructure for statewide mental health check ups
Evaluation of Ohio’s Infrastructure for Statewide Mental Health Check Ups

Responsivity

Continuous Quality Improvement Do-Study-Reflect-Plan

School Climate

Capability

(Stakeholder perception of innovation adoption)

Responsivity

Consent Climate Referral Climate

Program Providers

Receptivity

Family motivation to

give consent, complete referral

Output

Consents and screenings offered

“Counts”

Youth

and Families

Activitiesconsent, screening, referral

Outcomes

Consents granted;

Referrals completed


Consents

Consents Distributed*

Not Returned

Returned No

Returned Yes

Count

Row %

Count

Row %

Count

Row %

25,662

100%

3,791

15%

8,434

33%

13,430

Consents Returned = 12,232 (48%)

Returned No

Returned Yes

Count

Row %

Count

Row %

3,791

31%

8,434

69%

Consents

Total Offered

NOT Returned

Row %

Count

52%

*October 1, 2006- June 30, 2008


Consents1
Consents

We need to improve consent rates by applying what we have learned in Year 1 & 2

*Barriers, Challenges and Strategies Newsletter


What works what doesn t barriers challenges and strategies newsletter
What Works & What Doesn’t*Barriers, Challenges and Strategies Newsletter

  • Strategies Proven to Work

  • Sending consent form home with begin-year registration

  • Sending consent from a classroom combined with prevention education

  • Strategies that are Not Effective

  • Mailing consents

  • Incentives


Education mental health higher consent rates
Education + Mental Health = Higher Consent Rates

  • Of consents returned:

    • TeenScreen YES = 63.4%

    • SOS YES= 81.2%


Project totals
Project Totals*

  • Screenings Offered 25,662

  • Consents Returned 12,232

  • Screenings 7,658

  • Clinical Interviews 1,936

  • Referrals Made 1,238

* Oct 2006 – June 2008


Program outputs and outcomes
Program Outputs and Outcomes

  • Offer Screening

  • Obtain Parental Consent

  • Conduct Screenings

  • Conduct Clinical Interviews

  • Refer for Counseling



Screens by program type
Screens by Program Type

The TeenScreen Tool is more sensitive and finds more positive youth.



Clinical Interview Results

  • TeenScreen and SOS programs completed 100% of clinical interviews of youth positive

  • TeenScreen programs identified 27 youth that needed emergency care



Crisis referrals 27 2 3
Crisis Referrals: 27 (2.3%)

  • 18 Accepted by youth and parent

  • 4 Accepted by parent not youth

  • 1 Accepted by youth not parent

  • 4 rejected by youth and parent


Does follow up aid intervention
Does Follow-up Aid Intervention?

  • 1238 Referrals made, 990 received first follow-up call

    • 680 First appointments made

    • 576 First appointments kept (85%)

    • 34 First appointments missed (5%)

    • 68 Made Second appointments (9 missed the 2nd appt.)

  • Of 34 known missed first appointments,

    • 5 Missed due to lack of interest

    • 1 Missed due to provider not accepting insurance

    • 3 Had transportation concerns

    • 25 Did not report or reported other reasons


Referrals rejected 116
Referrals Rejected: 116

  • 72 (62%) received follow-up call

    • 4 made and kept an appointment

    • 68 made no appointment

  • 44 (38%) not called





Perception of screening questionnaire
Perception of Screening Questionnaire

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of

  • Compatibility

  • Complexity

  • Observability


Stakeholder perceptions

Correlations

Relative

advantage

Complexity

Observability

Appointment

mean

mean

mean

Yes

Relative advantage mean

Pearson Correlation

1

.159

*

.776

**

.149

Sig. (2-tailed)

.010

.000

.083

N

261

261

261

136

Complexity mean

Pearson Correlation

.159

*

1

.411

**

-.110

Sig. (2-tailed)

.010

.000

.204

N

261

261

261

136

Observability mean

Pearson Correlation

.776

**

.411

**

1

.199

*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.020

N

261

261

261

136

Appointment Yes

Pearson Correlation

.149

-.110

.199

*

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.083

.204

.020

N

136

136

136

1164

*.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**.

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Stakeholder Perceptions


Referral climate
Referral Climate

Youth

Parent


Referral climate items

Provided choices and options

Understood me

Conveyed confidence

Listened to me

Encouraged questions

Tried to understand how I see things before making suggestions

Referral Climate Items



Referral climate2
Referral Climate

Correlations

Relative

Mean -

Mean -

advantage

Complexity

Observability

Youth RCQ

Parent RCQ

mean

mean

mean

Kendall's tau_b

Mean - Youth RCQ

Correlation Coefficient

1.000

.261

**

.087

-.168

**

-.076

Sig. (2-tailed)

.

.000

.112

.002

.170

N

180

115

180

180

180

Mean - Parent RCQ

Correlation Coefficient

.261

**

1.000

.081

.093

-.055

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.

.208

.151

.399

N

115

150

144

144

144

Relative advantage mean

Correlation Coefficient

.087

.081

1.000

.019

.455

**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.112

.208

.

.673

.000

N

180

144

261

261

261

Complexity mean

Correlation Coefficient

-.168

**

.093

.019

1.000

.354

**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.002

.151

.673

.

.000

N

180

144

261

261

261

Observability mean

Correlation Coefficient

-.076

-.055

.455

**

.354

**

1.000

Sig. (2-tailed)

.170

.399

.000

.000

.

N

180

144

261

261

261

**.

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Referral climate findings
Referral Climate Findings

  • Lowest Rated Youth Item

    “The person who talked with me showed confidence that I can make changes if I want to”


Referral climate questioner findings
Referral Climate Questioner Findings

  • Lowest Rated Adult Item

    “The person who talked with me understands how I see things with respect to seeing a counselor”


ad