Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparative implementation strategy effectiveness

From: Assessing the comparative effectiveness of ECHO and coaching implementation strategies in a jail/provider MOUD implementation trial

 

New Counts of MOUD

 

Intervention Phase (12 Ms)

Sustainability Phase (12 Ms)

 

Comparative Effectiveness

t-value

p-value

n

Comparative Effectiveness

t-value

p-value

n

High – Low Coaching

18.622

1.577

.124

35

27.665

1.225

.220

30

ECHO – no ECHO

7.915

0.655

.517

35

9.932

0.440

.663

30

Jails w/CBTP – Jails w/o CBTP

12.171

0.677

.506

23

33.357

1.028

.318

20

 

Census Counts of MOUD

 

Intervention Phase (12 Ms)

Sustainability Phase (12 Ms)

 

Comparative Effectiveness

t-value

p-value

n

Comparative Effectiveness

t-value

p-value

n

High – Low Coaching

71.613

1.178

.247

36

96.080

1.305

.202

31

ECHO – no ECHO

45.960

0.747

.460

36

60.037

0.798

.432

31

Jails w/CBTP – Jails w/o CBTP

23.127

0.938

.359

23

33.758

0.641

.529

20

  1. Comparative effectiveness of different implementation strategies on new and census counts for MOUD during the intervention and sustainability phases, with t-values, p-values, and sample sizes for each comparison