| Course | IBC 793 Applied Project |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Evidence-based intervention paper |
| Length | About 431 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctor of Behavioral Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for IBC 793 Module 7
Four Parts, One Goal: The Evidence-Based Intervention for Closing the Loop
Student Name
Doctor of Behavioral Health, Arizona State University
IBC 793: Applied Project
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Four Parts, One Goal: The Evidence-Based Intervention for Closing the Loop
Overview
The intervention adapts collaborative care, a model with strong evidence in adults and promising evidence in adolescents, to the first step that our clinic is missing: getting adolescents with positive screens into care. In a randomized trial in primary care, adolescents receiving collaborative care were more likely to reach remission at 12 months, 50.4% compared with 20.7% (Richardson et al., 2014). Our project focuses on engagement, the precondition for that benefit.
Component 1: Same-Day Warm Handoff
As soon as a positive screen is entered in the chart, the medical assistant alerts the behavioral health consultant, and the pediatric provider introduces the consultant in the exam room using a short script that explains what the visit is and that it is part of usual care. Because one study found warm handoffs were less effective for English-speaking Latino patients when the referral experience did not address their expectations (Horevitz et al., 2015), the script asks the adolescent and parent what they expect and answers questions about confidentiality and cost.
Component 2: Brief Behavioral Health Visit
The consultant completes a 20- to 30-minute visit: a brief functional assessment, a safety screen and, when indicated, a written safety plan (Stanley & Brown, 2012), then one or two brief interventions, such as behavioral activation or problem solving, and a follow-up appointment within two weeks.
Component 3: Registry and Outreach
Every positive screen enters a registry. A bilingual care coordinator reviews the registry weekly and calls any family without a completed follow-up within seven days, offering an appointment, a telehealth option or help with transportation. Calls are made in the family's preferred language, and adolescents 12 and older can request that the first contact be with them directly where state law allows.
Component 4: Psychiatric Consultation
A consulting child psychiatrist reviews registry cases monthly with the consultant, focusing on adolescents whose scores have not improved by 50% within 8 to 12 weeks, mirroring the treat-to-target approach of collaborative care (Archer et al., 2012).
Fidelity
| Component | Fidelity check | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Warm handoff | Handoff documented on the day of a positive screen | 80% of positive screens |
| Brief visit | Safety screen documented | 100% of visits |
| Outreach | Call within seven days for families without follow-up | 90% |
| Consultation | Monthly case review held | Every month |
Conclusion
The intervention concentrates on the steps where adolescents are currently lost, uses evidence-based components and adapts them for language, confidentiality and access. Fidelity measures will show whether the intervention is delivered as designed, separating implementation problems from problems with the intervention itself (Proctor et al., 2011).
References
Archer, J., Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L., Dickens, C., & Coventry, P. (2012). Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(10), CD006525. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006525.pub2
Horevitz, E., Organista, K. C., & Areán, P. A. (2015). Depression treatment uptake in integrated primary care: How a "warm handoff" and other factors affect decision making by Latinos. Psychiatric Services, 66(8), 824-830. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400085
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Richardson, L. P., Ludman, E., McCauley, E., Lindenbaum, J., Larison, C., Zhou, C., Clarke, G., Brent, D., & Katon, W. (2014). Collaborative care for adolescents with depression in primary care: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 312(8), 809-816. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.9259
Stanley, B., & Brown, G. K. (2012). Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19(2), 256-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2011.01.001
IBC 793 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
Worth 20 points, the Evidenced Based Intervention Paper is the Module 7 centerpiece of IBC 793. Describe the intervention your quality improvement project will implement: its components, who delivers each and how. Support each component with evidence, drawing on the table you built in Module 5, and explain how you will adapt the intervention to your population and setting without losing its active ingredients. Address how you will know the intervention is delivered as intended. This paper becomes a central section of your Evidence-Based PICOT Proposal Folder in Module 12. Explain what each component is meant to fix in current practice. Describe the staff role behind every component, and say how often each step happens, so reviewers can picture the intervention running on an ordinary clinic day.
Inside the IBC 793 Module 7 example
The paper opens by stating which evidence-based model it adapts and why, with trial data. Four components follow, each with a short description of who does what and a source; the handoff component shows how a cautionary study shaped the script. Adaptations for language, adolescent confidentiality and access are built into the components rather than added at the end. A fidelity table sets measurable targets, and the conclusion explains why fidelity data matter for interpreting results. Margin notes explain the link between components and current failure points. Adaptations appear inside each component, showing how the model was fitted to this clinic rather than copied.
Where the marks sit in the IBC 793 Module 7 rubric
Faculty scoring this 20-point paper look for a clearly described intervention with defined components, strong links to evidence, thoughtful adaptation to the population and setting and a plan to monitor fidelity. Papers lose points when the intervention is described only in general terms, when evidence is cited without explaining how it supports a component, when adaptations remove the elements that made the intervention effective or when fidelity is ignored. Because this paper forms the core of the final proposal, clarity about who does what, and when, is especially valued. Clear fidelity targets show reviewers that you can distinguish a weak intervention from a weakly delivered one.
IBC 793 Module 7 help from the desk
List the intervention's components and the problem each one solves. Name who delivers each component and when. Cite the evidence for each component from your evidence table. Explain any adaptation and why it keeps the core ingredients. Add a simple fidelity measure for each component. Keep the description concrete enough that a new staff member could follow it. If your intervention has too many parts, the desk can help you prioritize. Reread your PICOT question to check alignment. Write a one-paragraph description of the intervention that a new medical assistant could follow, then expand each part. Check that every component has a source. Reread the evidence table before you write.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More IBC 793 and Doctor of Behavioral Health sample papers
- IBC 793 Module 2: SBAR Assignment: Closing the Loop on Positive Adolescent Depression Screens
- IBC 793 Module 3: PICOT Assignment: Building the Applied Project's Clinical Question
- IBC 793 Module 4: PICOT Population Paper: Adolescents With Positive Depression Screens in a Pediatric Clinic
- IBC 793 Module 5: Table Technique: An Evidence Table for the Project's Intervention
- IBC 793 Module 6: Intervention Steps and Timeline: Planning Six Months of Implementation
- IBC 793 Module 8: PICOT Current Status and Root Cause Analysis Paper: Why Follow-Up Fails
- IBC 793 Module 9: PICOT Identified Outcomes Paper: Outcome, Process and Balancing Measures
- IBC 793 Module 10: Measurement Tool Paper: The PHQ-9 for Adolescents and the Project Registry
- IBC 793 Module 11: Proposed Budget: The Costs of Closing the Loop
- IBC 603 Module 5: Case Presentation Paper: Brief Interventions for Depression, Insomnia and Diabetes in Primary Care
IBC 793 Module 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free IBC 793 Module 7 sample paper?
The four-component intervention paper with its fidelity table is here.
What does the IBC 793 intervention paper cover?
The intervention's components, evidence, adaptation to the setting and fidelity.
What is fidelity in implementation?
Whether the program staff actually deliver matches the program on paper.
What is a warm handoff?
A same-day, in-person introduction of a patient to a behavioral health provider by the medical provider.
Why include a safety screen in every visit?
Because adolescents with depression may have suicidal thoughts that require a safety plan.