Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Jennifer P. Wisdom is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Jennifer P. Wisdom.


Administration and Policy in Mental Health | 2015

Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research

Lawrence A. Palinkas; Sarah M. Horwitz; Carla A. Green; Jennifer P. Wisdom; Naihua Duan; Kimberly Hoagwood

Purposeful sampling is widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases related to the phenomenon of interest. Although there are several different purposeful sampling strategies, criterion sampling appears to be used most commonly in implementation research. However, combining sampling strategies may be more appropriate to the aims of implementation research and more consistent with recent developments in quantitative methods. This paper reviews the principles and practice of purposeful sampling in implementation research, summarizes types and categories of purposeful sampling strategies and provides a set of recommendations for use of single strategy or multistage strategy designs, particularly for state implementation research.


Administration and Policy in Mental Health | 2014

Innovation Adoption: A Review of Theories and Constructs

Jennifer P. Wisdom; Ka Ho Brian Chor; Kimberly Hoagwood; Sarah M. Horwitz

Many theoretical frameworks seek to describe the dynamic process of the implementation of innovations. Little is known, however, about factors related to decisions to adopt innovations and how the likelihood of adoption of innovations can be increased. Using a narrative synthesis approach, this paper compared constructs theorized to be related to adoption of innovations proposed in existing theoretical frameworks in order to identify characteristics likely to increase adoption of innovations. The overall goal was to identify elements across adoption frameworks that are potentially modifiable and, thus, might be employed to improve the adoption of evidence-based practices. The review identified 20 theoretical frameworks that could be grouped into two broad categories: theories that mainly address the adoption process (Nxa0=xa010) and theories that address adoption within the context of implementation, diffusion, dissemination, and/or sustainability (Nxa0=xa010). Constructs of leadership, operational size and structure, innovation fit with norms and values, and attitudes/motivation toward innovations each are mentioned in at least half of the theories, though there were no consistent definitions of measures for these constructs. A lack of precise definitions and measurement of constructs suggests further work is needed to increase our understanding of adoption of innovations.


Administration and Policy in Mental Health | 2015

Measures for Predictors of Innovation Adoption

Ka Ho Brian Chor; Jennifer P. Wisdom; Su-chin Serene Olin; Kimberly Hoagwood; Sarah M. Horwitz

Building on a narrative synthesis of adoption theories by Wisdom et al. (2013), this review identifies 118 measures associated with the 27 adoption predictors in the synthesis. The distribution of measures is uneven across the predictors and predictors vary in modifiability. Multiple dimensions and definitions of predictors further complicate measurement efforts. For state policymakers and researchers, more effective and integrated measurement can advance the adoption of complex innovations such as evidence-based practices.


Administration and Policy in Mental Health | 2015

Approaches to Mixed Methods Dissemination and Implementation Research: Methods, Strengths, Caveats, and Opportunities

Carla A. Green; Naihua Duan; Robert D. Gibbons; Kimberly Hoagwood; Lawrence A. Palinkas; Jennifer P. Wisdom

Limited translation of research into practice has prompted study of diffusion and implementation, and development of effective methods of encouraging adoption, dissemination and implementation. Mixed methods techniques offer approaches for assessing and addressing processes affecting implementation of evidence-based interventions. We describe common mixed methods approaches used in dissemination and implementation research, discuss strengths and limitations of mixed methods approaches to data collection, and suggest promising methods not yet widely used in implementation research. We review qualitative, quantitative, and hybrid approaches to mixed methods dissemination and implementation studies, and describe methods for integrating multiple methods to increase depth of understanding while improving reliability and validity of findings.


Administration and Policy in Mental Health | 2014

Developing quality indicators for family support services in community team-based mental health care.

S. Serene Olin; Krista Kutash; Michele Pollock; Barbara J. Burns; Anne D. Kuppinger; Nancy Craig; Frances Purdy; Kelsey Armusewicz; Jennifer P. Wisdom; Kimberly Hoagwood

Quality indicators for programs integrating parent-delivered family support services for children’s mental health have not been systematically developed. Increasing emphasis on accountability under the Affordable Care Act highlights the importance of quality-benchmarking efforts. Using a modified Delphi approach, quality indicators were developed for both program level and family support specialist level practices. These indicators were pilot tested with 21 community-based mental health programs. Psychometric properties of these indicators are reported; variations in program and family support specialist performance suggest the utility of these indicators as tools to guide policies and practices in organizations that integrate parent-delivered family support service components.


Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology | 2014

The Effects of Prior Authorization Policies on Medicaid-Enrolled Children's Use of Antipsychotic Medications: Evidence from Two Mid-Atlantic States

Bradley D. Stein; Emily Leckman-Westin; Edward Okeke; Deborah M. Scharf; Mark J. Sorbero; Qingxian Chen; Ka Ho Brian Chor; Molly Finnerty; Jennifer P. Wisdom

OBJECTIVEnThe purpose of this study was to examine the impact of prior authorization policies on the receipt of antipsychotic medication for Medicaid-enrolled children.nnnMETHODSnUsing de-identified administrative Medicaid data from two large, neighboring, mid-Atlantic states from November 2007 through June 2011, we identified subjects <18 years of age using antipsychotics, from the broader group of children and adolescents receiving behavioral health services or any psychotropic medication. Prior authorization for antipsychotics was required for children in State A <6 years of age from September 2008, and for children <13 years of age from August 2009. No such prior authorizations existed in State B during that period. Filled prescriptions were identified in the data using national drug codes. Using a triple-difference strategy (using differences among the states, time periods, and differences in antidepressant prescribing rates among states over the same time periods), we examined the effect of the prior authorization policy on the rate at which antipsychotic prescriptions were filled for Medicaid-enrolled children and adolescents.nnnRESULTSnThe impact of prior authorization policies on antipsychotic medication use varied by age: Among 6-12 year old children, the impact of the prior authorization policy on antipsychotic medication prescribing was a modest but statistically significant decrease of 0.47% after adjusting for other factors; there was no effect of the prior authorization among children 0-5 years.nnnCONCLUSIONSnPrior authorization policies had a modest but statistically significant effect on antipsychotic use in 6-12 year old children, but had no impact in younger children. Future research is needed to understand the utilization and clinical effects of prior authorization and other policies and interventions designed to influence antipsychotic use in children.


Behavioral Sciences & The Law | 2013

Transitioning Between Systems of Care: Missed Opportunities for Engaging Adults with Serious Mental Illness and Criminal Justice Involvement

Leah Gogel Pope; Thomas E. Smith; Jennifer P. Wisdom; Alison Easter; Michele Pollock

Individuals with serious mental illness are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and face difficulties accessing mental health services both during incarceration and upon re-entry into the community. This study examines how such individuals describe their experiences receiving care both during and after their time in custody and explores the perspectives of mental health service providers who treat this population upon re-entry. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 individuals identified as having a history of serious mental illness and criminal justice involvement, as well as with 25 providers who have worked with this population. Clients noted the stress of transitioning to criminal justice settings, the uneven availability of services within jail and prison, and the significant challenges faced upon re-entry. Providers reported barriers to working with this population, including minimal coordination with the criminal justice system and challenging behaviors and attitudes on the part of both clients and providers. Findings identify potential target areas for improved care coordination as well as for additional provider education regarding the unique needs of this population.


Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research | 2016

Perspectives of Treatment Providers and Clients with Serious Mental Illness Regarding Effective Therapeutic Relationships

Alison Easter; Michele Pollock; Leah Gogel Pope; Jennifer P. Wisdom; Thomas E. Smith

This study explores the nature of clinical therapeutic relationships between mental health treatment providers and high-need clients with serious mental illness who had recently discontinued treatment. Semi-structured qualitative interviews of 56 clients with serious mental illness who had recently discontinued care and 25 mental health treatment providers were completed. Both clients with serious mental illness and treatment providers emphasized the importance of client-focused goal setting, time and availability of treatment providers, a caring approach, and trust and honesty in the relationship. However, clients with serious mental illness placed greater emphasis on goals involving tangible services, a notable area of discord between the two groups. Individuals with serious mental illness and treatment providers agreed regarding several key elements to a positive clinical relationship. Further attention to client goals related to tangible services may serve to improve relationships between treatment providers and high-need clients with serious mental illness.


Administration and Policy in Mental Health | 2016

Use of Pooled State Administrative Data for Mental Health Services Research.

Kimberly Hoagwood; Susan M. Essock; Anne M. Libby; Sheila A. Donahue; Benjamin G. Druss; Molly Finnerty; Linda K. Frisman; Meera Narasimhan; Bradley D. Stein; Jennifer P. Wisdom; Judy Zerzan

State systems are a rich, albeit challenging, laboratory for policy-relevant services research studies. State mental health authorities routinely devote resources to collect data for state planning and reporting purposes. However, these data are rarely used in cross-state comparisons to inform state or federal policy development. In 2008, in response to key recommendations from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Advisory Council’s “The Road Ahead: Research Partnership to Transform Services,” (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/advisory-boards-and-groups/namhc/reports/road-ahead.pdf), NIMH issued a request for applications (RFA) to support studies on the impact of state policy changes on access, cost, quality and outcomes of care for individuals with mental disorders. The purpose of the RFA was to bridge the divide between research and policy by encouraging research that used state administrative data across states, and to address significant state-defined health policy initiatives. Five projects involving eight states were selected through peer review for funding. Projects began in 2009 and were funded for 3xa0years. This report provides a brief description of the five projects, followed by an analysis of the impact, challenges, and lessons learned from these policy-partnered studies. We conclude by offering suggestions on ways to use state administrative data for informing state health policies, which is especially timely given national and state changes in the structure and financing of healthcare.


Administration and Policy in Mental Health | 2014

What family support specialists do: examining service delivery.

Jennifer P. Wisdom; R. Eric Lewandowski; Michele Pollock; Mary Acri; Priscilla Shorter; S. Serene Olin; Kelsey Armusewicz; Sarah M. Horwitz; Kimberly Hoagwood

This study describes services provided by family support specialists (FSS), peer advocates in programs for children with serious psychiatric conditions, to delineate differences between recommended components of FSS services and services actually provided. An analysis of qualitative interview and observational data and quantitative survey data from 63 staff at 21 mental health programs in New York identified that FSS and other staff have generally similar ideas about FSS services, and that these perceptions of activities are generally congruent with what FSS actually did. Implications of findings are discussed in the context of developing competencies and quality indicators for FSS.

Collaboration


Dive into the Jennifer P. Wisdom's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Catherine Ndinda

University of KwaZulu-Natal

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Donald Hugh Myrick

Medical University of South Carolina

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge