Table 1
Informants in the ACT implementation study.
| Role | n after one year | n after two years |
|---|---|---|
| Process Leader | 1 | 1 |
| Team members | 4 (2 interviews) | 8 (2 interviews) |
| Steering group | 5 (2 interviews) | 5 (3 interviews) |
| Financial Coordination Agency | 1 | – |
| Total | 11 | 14 |
Table 2
SIS result for the ACT team after one year.
| Sub-scale | Score, ACT Team (Total) |
|---|---|
| Organisational Level | 35 (36) |
| Team Level | 18 (21) |
| Continuous strategies for support | 14 (15) |
| Total Scale | 67 (72) |
Table 3
ACT programme fidelity after 6, 18, and 24 months.
| 6 months | 18 months | 24 months | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operations and Structure | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Core Team | 3.3 | 4.4 | 4.0 |
| Specialist Team | 2.6 | 4.2 | 4.9 |
| Core Practices | 3.6 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| EBP | 3.6 | 4.1 | 4.4 |
| Person-Centred Planning Practices | 2.2 | 3.2 | 4.2 |
| Total Mean Score | 3.2 | 4.02 | 4.35 |
Figure 1
Examples of flows of interactional uncertainty, loosely based on Jensen et al. [9].