Usability Evaluation for Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions (USE-EBPI): A methodology for assessing complex intervention implementability

Leveraging Single-Case Experimental Designs to Promote Personalized Psychological Treatment: Step-by-Step Implementation Protocol with Stakeholder Involvement of an Outpatient Clinic for Personalized Psychotherapy

Our objective is to implement a single-case experimental design (SCED) infrastructure in combination with experience-sampling methods (ESM) into the standard diagnostic procedure of a German outpatient research and training clinic. Building on the idea of routine outcome monitoring, the SCED infrastructure introduces intensive longitudinal data collection, individual effectiveness measures, and the opportunity for systematic manipulation to push personalization efforts further. It aims to empower psychotherapists and patients to evaluate their own treatment (idiographic perspective) and to enable researchers to analyze open questions of personalized psychotherapy (nomothetic perspective). Organized around the principles of agile research, we plan to develop, implement, and evaluate the SCED infrastructure in six successive studies with continuous stakeholder involvement: In the project development phase, the business model for the SCED infrastructure is developed that describes its vision in consideration of the context (Study 1). Also, the infrastructure's prototype is specified, encompassing the SCED procedure, ESM protocol, and ESM survey (Study 2 and 3). During the optimization phase, feasibility and acceptability are tested and the infrastructure is adapted accordingly (Study 4). The evaluation phase includes a pilot implementation study to assess implementation outcomes (Study 5), followed by actual implementation using a within-institution A-B design (Study 6). The sustainability phase involves continuous monitoring and improvement. We discuss to what extent the generated data could be used to address current questions of personalized psychotherapy research. Anticipated barriers and limitations during the implementation processes are outlined.

Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.

METHOD

MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.

DISCUSSION

MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

HCI Contributions in Mental Health: A Modular Framework to Guide Psychosocial Intervention Design

Many people prefer psychosocial interventions for mental health care or other concerns, but these interventions are often complex and unavailable in settings where people seek care. Intervention designers use technology to improve user experience or reach of interventions, and HCI researchers have made many contributions toward this goal. Both HCI and mental health researchers must navigate tensions between innovating on and adhering to the theories of change that guide intervention design. In this paper, we propose a framework that describes design briefs and evaluation approaches for HCI contributions at the scopes of capabilities, components, intervention systems, and intervention implementations. We show how theories of change (from mental health) can be translated into design briefs (in HCI), and that these translations can bridge and coordinate efforts across fields. It is our hope that this framework can support researchers in motivating, planning, conducting, and communicating work that advances psychosocial intervention design.

Using Multiphase Optimization Strategy and Human-Centered Design to Create an Integrated Model of Palliative Care Skills in Home-Based Physical Therapy for Advanced Heart Failure

Background: Many older adults with advanced heart failure receive home health rehabilitation after hospitalization. Yet, integration of palliative care skills into rehabilitation is limited. Objective: Describe using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) framework with human-centered design principles to engage clinical partners in the Preparation phase of palliative physical therapy intervention development. Design: We convened a home-based physical therapy advisory team (four clinicians, three clinical leaders) to identify physical therapist needs and preferences for incorporating palliative care skills in rehabilitation and design an intervention prototype. Results: Between 2022 and 2023, we held five advisory team meetings. Initial feedback on palliative care skill preferences and training needs directly informed refinement of our conceptual model and skills in the intervention prototype. Later feedback focused on reviewing and revising intervention content, delivery strategy, and training considerations. Conclusion: Incorporating human-centered design principles within the MOST provided a useful framework to partner with clinical colleagues in intervention design.

Project nature: promoting outdoor physical activity in children via primary care

BACKGROUND

Families face a range of barriers in supporting their children's active play in nature including family circumstances, environmental constraints, and behavioral factors. Evidence-based strategies to address these barriers are needed. We aimed to develop and pilot test a primary care-based family-centered behavioral intervention to promote active outdoor play in 4-10 year-old children.

METHODS

Project Nature, a provider-delivered intervention that provides informational resources and an age-appropriate toy for nature play, was initially developed for children ages 0-3. With stakeholder input, we adapted existing materials for 4-10 year-olds and conducted usability testing at an urban clinic serving families from diverse backgrounds. Subsequently, we conducted a mix-methods pilot study to evaluate intervention feasibility and acceptability. Parents of 4-10 year-olds completed pre- and post-surveys (n = 22), and a purposive subset (n = 10) completed qualitative interviews. Post-intervention, pediatric providers (n = 4) were interviewed about their implementation experiences.

RESULTS

The majority (82%) of parents liked the information provided and the remaining (18%) were neutral. Qualitatively, parents reported that: the toy provided a tangible element to help children and parents be active, they did not use the website, and they wished the intervention emphasized strategies for physical activity during cold and wet seasons. Providers felt the materials facilitated discussion about behavior change with families. There were no statistically significant changes in PA and outdoor time pre- and post-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Project Nature was welcomed by providers and families and may be a practical intervention to promote outdoor active play during well-child visits. Providing an age-appropriate nature toy seemed to be a critical component of the intervention, and may be worth the additional cost, time and storage space required by clinics. Building from these results, Project Nature should be revised to better support active outdoor play during suboptimal weather and evaluated to test its efficacy in a fully-powered trial.

Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize Evidence (HELM): The iterative redesign of the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI) intervention for use in schools

Background

Few "intervention agnostic" strategies have been developed that can be applied to the broad array of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in schools. This paper describes two studies that reflect the initial iterative redesign phases of an effective leadership-focused implementation strategy-Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI)-to ensure its acceptability, feasibility, contextual appropriateness, and usability when used in elementary schools. Our redesigned strategy-Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize Evidence (HELM)-is designed to improve principals' use of strategic implementation leadership to support the adoption and high-fidelity delivery of a universal EBP to improve student outcomes.

Method

In Study 1, focus groups were conducted (n = 6) with 54 district administrators, principals, and teachers. Stakeholders provided input on the appropriateness of original LOCI components to maximize relevance and utility in schools. Transcripts were coded using conventional content analysis. Key themes referencing low appropriateness were summarized to inform LOCI adaptations. We then held a National Expert Summit (Study 2) with 15 research and practice experts. Participants provided feedback via a nominal group process (NGP; n = 6 groups) and hackathon (n = 4 groups). The research team rated each NGP suggestion for how actionable, impactful/effective, and feasible it was. We also coded hackathon notes for novel ideas or alignment with LOCI components.

Results

Study 1 suggestions included modifications to LOCI content and delivery. Study 2's NGP results revealed most recommendations to be actionable, impactful/effective, and feasible. Hackathon results surfaced two novel ideas (distributed leadership teams and leaders' knowledge to support educators EBP use) and several areas of alignment with LOCI components.

Conclusion

Use of these iterative methods informed the redesign of LOCI and the development of HELM. Because it was collaboratively constructed, HELM has the potential to be an effective implementation strategy to support the use of universal EBP in schools.

Bridging the gap: A quality improvement project to implement psychosocial care standards into clinical practice in pediatric oncology

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial guidelines and standards systematically describe stressors and resources in particularly challenging situations and hence serve as a basis for interventions to achieve defined psychosocial goals. Despite fundamental principles and guidelines for psychosocial methods, the quality of provided care varies considerably depending on setting, provision, and profession. The purpose of the present protocol is to illustrate the development and evaluation of the standardized psychological intervention "My Logbook", a practical guide accompanying children through all stages of treatment by directly translating current quality standards of psychosocial care into practice.

METHODS

In an evidence-based set-up, using face-to-face discussions and telephone conferences, a multi-professional team of local experts decide on critical disease-related issues, structure, content (information and intervention elements) and design of the quality improvement tool. Via delphi surveys an extended expert team is asked to rate the content, method, and design of all booklets which is concluded by a final agreement by the specialist group for quality assurance of the psychosocial working group in the Society for Pediatric Oncology (PSAPOH). The developed tools are piloted in an international multicenter study to evaluate the patient-reported outcome and feasibility and to integrate practical views of patients, as well as psychosocial and interdisciplinary professionals into the further development of the "My Logbook".

DISCUSSION

The iterative development of the "My Logbook" including local and international experts as well as the patient and practical perspective allow for the design of a process-oriented, consensus - and evidence-based tool directly translating the S3-Guideline into clinical practice. Feasibility and applicability are fostered through an iterative process of constant evaluation and adaptation of the tool by international experts and through the clinical experience gathered in the multi-centered pilot study. Furthermore, the systematic evaluation of the tool by patients, psychosocial, and interdisciplinary professionals enables the identification of persisting gaps between evidence-based standards and clinical practice, discrepancies between the various stakeholders' perspectives as well as regional differences in feasibility, thereby directly linking practice and research. The preliminary results emphasize that psychological support can be standardized, enabling an evaluation and optimization of psychosocial care which future studies need to assess in multicenter clinical randomized controlled trials.

To Utility and Beyond! Specifying and Advancing the Utility of Measurement-Based Care for Youth

Mental health organizations that serve youth are under pressure to adopt measurement-based care (MBC), defined as the continuous collection of client-report data used to support clinical decision-making as part of standard care. However, few frameworks exist to help leadership ascertain how to select an MBC approach for a clinical setting. This paper seeks to define how an MBC approach can display clinical utility to provide such a framework. Broadly, we define clinical utility as evidence that an MBC approach assists stakeholders in fulfilling clinical goals related to care quality (i.e., improve client-clinician alliance and clinical outcomes) at the client (i.e., youth and caregiver), clinician, supervisor, and administrator levels. More specifically, our definition of clinical utility is divided into two categories relevant to the usability and usefulness of an MBC approach for a specific setting: (a) implementability (i.e., evidence indicating ease of use in a clinical setting) and (b) usefulness in aiding clinical activities (i.e., evidence indicating the potential to improve communication and make clinical activities related to care quality easier or more effective). These categories provide valuable information about how easy an MBC approach is to use and the potential benefits that the MBC data will confer. To detail how we arrived at this definition, we review prior definitions of clinical utility, discuss how previous definitions inform our definition of clinical utility for MBC, and provide examples of how the concept of clinical utility can be applied to MBC. We finish with a discussion of future research directions.

Usability Issues in Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions and Implementation Strategies: Cross-project Analysis

BACKGROUND

People often prefer evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) for mental health care; however, these interventions frequently remain unavailable to people in nonspecialty or integrated settings, such as primary care and schools. Previous research has suggested that usability, a concept from human-centered design, could support an understanding of the barriers to and facilitators of the successful adoption of EBPIs and support the redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify and categorize usability issues in EBPIs and their implementation strategies.

METHODS

We adapted a usability issue analysis and reporting format from a human-centered design. A total of 13 projects supported by the National Institute of Mental Health-funded Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center at the University of Washington used this format to describe usability issues for EBPIs and implementation strategies with which they were working. Center researchers used iterative affinity diagramming and coding processes to identify usability issue categories. On the basis of these categories and the underlying issues, we propose heuristics for the design or redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies.

RESULTS

The 13 projects reported a total of 90 usability issues, which we categorized into 12 categories, including complex and/or cognitively overwhelming, required time exceeding available time, incompatibility with interventionist preference or practice, incompatibility with existing workflow, insufficient customization to clients/recipients, intervention buy-in (value), interventionist buy-in (trust), overreliance on technology, requires unavailable infrastructure, inadequate scaffolding for client/recipient, inadequate training and scaffolding for interventionists, and lack of support for necessary communication. These issues range from minor inconveniences that affect a few interventionists or recipients to severe issues that prevent all interventionists or recipients in a setting from completing part or all of the intervention. We propose 12 corresponding heuristics to guide EBPIs and implementation strategy designers in preventing and addressing these usability issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Usability issues were prevalent in the studied EBPIs and implementation strategies. We recommend using the lens of usability evaluation to understand and address barriers to the effective use and reach of EBPIs and implementation strategies.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/14990.

Iterative redesign of a caregiver-mediated intervention for use in educational settings

LAY ABSTRACT

Teachers often report concerns about behavior challenges in their students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the school setting. Furthermore, teachers often report that they do not have adequate training in how to manage these challenging behaviors effectively. The RUBI program is an intervention initially developed for parents of children with ASD and co-occurring challenging behavior in clinic settings. The present project used school staff input to systematically redesign RUBI to be used with educators in schools. School staff gave input at multiple stages of development to ensure the adapted intervention was appropriate to use in a school setting. Responses were coded and analyzed to identify strengths and weaknesses of the RUBI manual in schools and adaptations were made accordingly. Scores of how appropriate, possible, likable, and usable RUBI would be in schools rose after the intervention was redesigned. The redesigned RUBIES manual may give school staff the tools they need to manage disruptive behaviors. In addition, collaborating with providers over multiple stages to redesign established interventions for new contexts may be a promising way to help bring research tools to practice in the future.

Human-centered design methods to achieve preparation phase goals in the multiphase optimization strategy framework

Background

The public health impact of behavioral and biobehavioral interventions to prevent and treat mental health and substance use problems hinges on developing methods to strategically maximize their effectiveness, affordability, scalability, and efficiency.

Methods

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an innovative, principled framework that guides the development of multicomponent interventions. Each phase of MOST (Preparation, Optimization, Evaluation) has explicit goals and a range of appropriate research methods to achieve them. Methods for attaining Optimization and Evaluation phase goals are well-developed. However, methods used in the Preparation phase are often highly researcher-specific, and concrete ways to achieve Preparation phase goals are a priority area for further development.

Results

We propose that the discover, design, build, and test (DDBT) framework provides a theory-driven and methods-rich roadmap for achieving the goals of the Preparation phase of MOST, including specifying the conceptual model, identifying and testing candidate intervention components, and defining the optimization objective. The DDBT framework capitalizes on strategies from the field of human-centered design and implementation science to drive its data collection methods.

Conclusions

MOST and DDBT share many conceptual features, including an explicit focus on implementation determinants, being iterative and flexible, and designing interventions for the greatest public health impact. The proposed synthesized DDBT/MOST approach integrates DDBT into the Preparation phase of MOST thereby providing a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research to bolster the success of intervention optimization.

Plain Language Summary

1. What is already known about the topic? Optimizing behavioral interventions to balance effectiveness with affordability, scalability, and efficiency requires a significant investment in intervention development.2. What does this paper add? This paper provides a structured approach to integrating human-centered design principles into the Preparation phase of the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST).3. What are the implications for practice, research, or policy? The proposed synthesized model provides a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research in the Preparation phase of MOST that will ensure the success of intervention optimization and contribute to improving public health impact of mental health and substance use interventions.

Barriers to Clinician Implementation of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in New Zealand and Australia: What Role for Time-Out?

BACKGROUND

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an effective parent training approach for a commonly occurring and disabling condition, namely conduct problems in young children. Yet, despite ongoing efforts to train clinicians in PCIT, the intervention is not widely available in New Zealand and Australia.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional online survey of clinicians in New Zealand and Australia who had completed at least the 40-h initial PCIT training, to understand the barriers they encountered in their implementation efforts, and the extent to which attitudes toward time-out influenced implementation. The overall response rate was 47.5% (NZ: 60%; Australia: 31.4%).

RESULTS

Responses suggested that participants generally viewed PCIT as both acceptable and effective. Australian participants reported seeing significantly more clients for PCIT per week than those in NZ (Medians 0 and 2, respectively; χ2(1) = 14.08, p < 0.001) and tended to view PCIT as more effective in treating disruptive and oppositional behaviour (95% CI: -0.70, -0.13, p = 0.005). Participants currently seeing PCIT clients described it as more enjoyable to implement than those not using PCIT (95% CI: -0.85, -0.10, p = 0.01). Thirty-eight percent of participants indicated that they adapt or tailor the standardised protocol, primarily by adding in content relating to emotion regulation, and removing content relating to time-out. Participants generally felt that they had fewer skills, less knowledge, and less confidence relating to the Parent-Directed Interaction phase of PCIT (which involves time-out), compared with the Child-Directed Interaction phase.

CONCLUSION

While we had hypothesised that time-out represented an intra-intervention component that detracted from implementation success, results suggested that clinician concern over the use of time-out was present but not prominent. Rather, the lack of access to suitable equipment (i.e., one-way mirror and ear-piece) and difficulties associated with clients attending clinic-based sessions were barriers most commonly reported by clinicians. We suggest that future research might consider whether and how PCIT might be "re-implemented" by already-trained clinicians, moving beyond simply training more clinicians in the approach.

The Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS): a pragmatic method for assessing implementation strategy usability

BACKGROUND

Implementation strategies have flourished in an effort to increase integration of research evidence into clinical practice. Most strategies are complex, socially mediated processes. Many are complicated, expensive, and ultimately impractical to deliver in real-world settings. The field lacks methods to assess the extent to which strategies are usable and aligned with the needs and constraints of the individuals and contexts who will deliver or receive them. Drawn from the field of human-centered design, cognitive walkthroughs are an efficient assessment method with potential to identify aspects of strategies that may inhibit their usability and, ultimately, effectiveness. This article presents a novel walkthrough methodology for evaluating strategy usability as well as an example application to a post-training consultation strategy to support school mental health clinicians to adopt measurement-based care.

METHOD

The Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS) is a pragmatic, mixed-methods approach for evaluating complex, socially mediated implementation strategies. CWIS includes six steps: (1) determine preconditions; (2) hierarchical task analysis; (3) task prioritization; (4) convert tasks to scenarios; (5) pragmatic group testing; and (6) usability issue identification, classification, and prioritization. A facilitator conducted two group testing sessions with clinician users (N = 10), guiding participants through 6 scenarios and 11 associated subtasks. Clinicians reported their anticipated likelihood of completing each subtask and provided qualitative justifications during group discussion. Following the walkthrough sessions, users completed an adapted quantitative assessment of strategy usability.

RESULTS

Average anticipated success ratings indicated substantial variability across participants and subtasks. Usability ratings (scale 0-100) of the consultation protocol averaged 71.3 (SD = 10.6). Twenty-one usability problems were identified via qualitative content analysis with consensus coding, and classified by severity and problem type. High-severity problems included potential misalignment between consultation and clinical service timelines as well as digressions during consultation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

CWIS quantitative usability ratings indicated that the consultation protocol was at the low end of the "acceptable" range (based on norms from the unadapted scale). Collectively, the 21 resulting usability issues explained the quantitative usability data and provided specific direction for usability enhancements. The current study provides preliminary evidence for the utility of CWIS to assess strategy usability and generate a blueprint for redesign.

Harmonizing evidence-based practice, implementation context, and implementation strategies with user-centered design: a case example in young adult cancer care

BACKGROUND

Attempting to implement evidence-based practices in contexts for which they are not well suited may compromise their fidelity and effectiveness or burden users (e.g., patients, providers, healthcare organizations) with elaborate strategies intended to force implementation. To improve the fit between evidence-based practices and contexts, implementation science experts have called for methods for adapting evidence-based practices and contexts and tailoring implementation strategies; yet, methods for considering the dynamic interplay among evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies remain lacking. We argue that harmonizing the three can be facilitated by user-centered design, an iterative and highly stakeholder-engaged set of principles and methods.

METHODS

This paper presents a case example in which we used a three-phase user-centered design process to design and plan to implement a care coordination intervention for young adults with cancer. Specifically, we used usability testing to redesign and augment an existing patient-reported outcome measure that served as the basis for our intervention to optimize its usability and usefulness, ethnographic contextual inquiry to prepare the context (i.e., a comprehensive cancer center) to promote receptivity to implementation, and iterative prototyping workshops with a multidisciplinary design team to design the care coordination intervention and anticipate implementation strategies needed to enhance contextual fit.

RESULTS

Our user-centered design process resulted in the Young Adult Needs Assessment and Service Bridge (NA-SB), including a patient-reported outcome measure and a collection of referral pathways that are triggered by the needs young adults report, as well as implementation guidance. By ensuring NA-SB directly responded to features of users and context, we designed NA-SB for implementation, potentially minimizing the strategies needed to address misalignment that may have otherwise existed. Furthermore, we designed NA-SB for scale-up; by engaging users from other cancer programs across the country to identify points of contextual variation which would require flexibility in delivery, we created a tool intended to accommodate diverse contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

User-centered design can help maximize usability and usefulness when designing evidence-based practices, preparing contexts, and informing implementation strategies-in effect, harmonizing evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies to promote implementation and effectiveness.

Risk-need-responsivity and its application in behavioral health settings: A feasibility study of a treatment planning support tool

The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model suggests several key practices for justice-involved populations under correctional supervision. Behavioral health treatment planning aligned with RNR principles for offender populations with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (CODs) could be one method for integrating RNR into clinical care. To explore a unique approach to working with behavioral health and RNR principles, the authors implemented a mixed-methods feasibility study of the acceptability, usability, and utility of a newly developed RNR treatment planning support tool (RNR TST). The tool was implemented in a re-entry program serving adults with co-occurring mental health and opioid use disorders. Chart reviews of RNR TSTs (N = 55) and a focus group (N = 14 re-entry clinical staff) were conducted. Ninety-six percent of the RNR TSTs incorporated the use of a validated risk-need assessment and 70% of the RNR TSTs were semi-complete to complete. Focus group interviews highlighted behavioral health staff perspectives on the acceptability, usability, and utility of the RNR TST. This novel RNR TST has the potential to assist behavioral health providers in integrating RNR principles into treatment planning. Further development and testing are needed to determine its impact on client care and outcomes.

Impact of Trauma-Informed Training and Mindfulness-Based Social–Emotional Learning Program on Teacher Attitudes and Burnout: A Mixed-Methods Study

A trauma-informed approach can give teachers the strategies they need to help children affected by trauma reach their full potential in the classroom. Mindfulness-based social–emotional learning (SEL) programs equip teachers with essential tools to create a trauma-informed classroom, which in turn helps alleviate stress associated with supporting trauma-impacted children. Because existing research on SEL programs has predominantly focused on student well-being, there is a paucity of research examining teacher outcomes and the integration of a trauma-informed framework. The purpose of the study was to investigate the benefits of trauma-informed training and MindUP delivery on educator attitudes and burnout. Intervention educators received trauma-informed and MindUP training and implemented MindUP in their classrooms. Comparison educators did not participate in training and taught their usual curriculum. We compared trauma-informed attitudes and burnout levels among 112 educators (n = 71 intervention, n = 41 comparison) using the Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) scale and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Pre- and post-intervention quantitative data were augmented by qualitative focus group data. Results showed that educators in the intervention group reported significant decreases in emotional exhaustion, and significant improvements in the reactions subscale and overall scores on the ARTIC scale. Greatest improvements in self-efficacy and personal accomplishment were observed among educators who implemented MindUP for two consecutive years. These findings were supported by focus group data. Our results show that infusing trauma-informed training with an existing mindfulness-based SEL intervention may encourage teachers to embrace trauma-sensitive attitudes and reduce burnout.