Table 4.

Mixed Methods Findings about TF-CBT Implementation in Schools

	Top 5 Determinants (Quantitative)	Connection to Focus Group Themes and Codes (Qualitative)
Facilitators	Evidence-Base of TF-CBT	The training experience was appreciated by clinicians and reported as valuable to have TF-CBT as “part of the toolbox”. This could be because they viewed TF-CBT as evidence-based and having promise to help their students who clearly need it before and/or as a result of the training experience.
	Strength / Promise of TF-CBT to help students
	Clarity (who benefits most from TF-CBT)
	Compatibility (fit with students)	High prevalence of trauma exposure among students and parents make trauma treatment a good fit. However, adaptations could improve fit and feasibility.
	Trialability	No clear connection to qualitative results. Clinicians may have rated this highly because they were able to “try out” TF-CBT during this implementation pilot.
Barriers	Effort	School-based clinicians’ role with trauma treatment (i.e., lack of time, scope of practice) presented these barriers in the school context
	Referral → Enrollment
	Team Processes
	Feasibility	Office space and lack of time, both parts of the school-based clinicians’ role, made feasibility a challenge. The narrative portion of the TF-CBT Model presented unique feasibility challenges in schools. Adaptations needed (i.e., slower pace, flexibility with the model like more time with PRAC skills and shorter sessions) could improve feasibility. Training experience, particularly consultation calls, were noted as infeasible to some clinicians (not all).
	Parent Preferences	Students and parents theme includes difficulty with parent engagement, consent and enrollment as well as how student and family characteristics and experiences may have influenced preferences for TF-CBT.