Search

Many training initiatives are underway to increase implementation of evidence-based practice (EBPs) in mental healthcare. However, little is known about what types of trainings and supports yield the highest reach and engagement. Supported by a tax-funded, countywide initiative to improve access to quality care for youths, the current mixed methods study evaluates mental health (MH) provider reach, or registering for the training initiative, and engagement, or participation in training activities, for several EBP training and implementation supports. MH providers were offered free 1) formal EBP workshops, 2) a biweekly learning community, 3) individual case consultation, and 4) confidential online clinical feedback system. To register, interested providers (N = 698) completed a web-based assessment measuring clinical practice information, organizational implementation climate, and EBP knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Thirteen providers, selected via purposeful sampling stratified by level of participation, completed semi-structured qualitative interviews. While the training initiative achieved high reach (66% of county agencies had a provider register), far fewer providers engaged substantially in training. Quantitative results indicated that providers whose professional discipline was not psychology, had higher baseline EBP knowledge, more extensive use of common evidence-based strategies, and less extensive use of other therapy strategies, engaged in more training. Rapid qualitative analysis of interviews expanded upon these findings and illuminated provider, organizational, system, practical, and training activity-specific barriers and facilitators to engagement. Findings suggest the importance of identifying strategies for improving provider engagement in training activities beyond workshops. Implications for future research and training initiatives are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standardized assessment measures are important for accurate diagnosis of mental health problems and for treatment planning and evaluation. However, little is known about youth mental health providers' typical use of standardized measures across disciplines and outside the context of evidence-based practice initiatives. A multidisciplinary national survey examined the frequency with which 674 youth mental health providers administer standardized and unstandardized measures, and the extent to which organizational (i.e., implementation climate, rigid hierarchical organizational structure) and provider (i.e., attitudes toward standardized assessment measures, highest degree, practice setting) characteristics are associated with standardized measure use. Providers used unstandardized measures far more frequently than standardized measures. Providers' perceptions (a) that standardized measures are practical or feasible, (b) that their organization supports and values evidence-based practices, and (c) that their organization has a rigid hierarchical structure predicted greater use of standardized measures. Working in schools predicted less frequent SMU, while working in higher education and other professional settings predicted more frequent SMU. Standardized measures were not routinely used in this community-based sample. A rigid hierarchical organizational structure may be conducive to more frequent administration of standardized measures, but it is unclear whether such providers actually utilize these measures for clinical decision-making. Alternative strategies to promote standardized measure use may include promoting organizational cultures that value empirical data and encouraging use of standardized measures and training providers to use pragmatic standardized measures for clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publicly funded initiatives are underway to improve implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP) in youth mental health services. However, we know little about the success of these initiatives or about EBP implementation independent of such initiatives. We examined EBP implementation in a treatment as usual (TAU) state and in six states with publicly funded EBP initiatives (EBPIs). In Study 1, we examined providers' use of practices derived from the evidence base (PDEB) and their predictors among 780 providers in a TAU state. In Study 2, we conducted a systematic review of implementation strategies, outcomes, and predictors of EBP use in six state funded EBPIs. Study 1 suggests TAU providers use PDEB alongside practices without consistent research support; provider racial/ethnic minority status, learning theory orientation, and manual use predict greater PDEB use. Study 2 indicates EBPIs employ multiple recommended implementation strategies with variable outcomes across studies and measurement approaches. Predictors of EBP use in EBPIs also varied, though training, setting, and youth age were consistent predictors across studies. While sample differences and inconsistent measurement across studies made direct comparisons somewhat tenuous, rates of PDEB use in the TAU sample appeared similar to those in publicly funded EBPIs. However, two states reported comparisons with TAU samples and found higher EBP implementation under EBPI. Different predictors impacted EBP use in TAU versus EBPIs. Our findings highlight the need for improved evaluation of EBPIs including clear reporting standards for outcomes and more consistent, standardized measurement of EBP use in order to better understand and improve EBPIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]