Search

Objective: State mental health systems are retraining their workforces to deliver services supported by research. Knowledge about evidence-based therapies (EBTs) for child and adolescent disorders is robust, but the feasibility of their statewide scaling has not been examined. The authors reviewed implementation feasibility for 12 commonly used EBTs, defining feasibility for statewide scaling as an EBT having at least one study documenting acceptability, facilitators and barriers, or fidelity; at least one study with a racially and ethnically diverse sample; an entity for training, certification, or licensing; and fiscal data reflecting the costs of implementation., Methods: The authors reviewed materials for 12 EBTs being scaled in New York State and conducted a literature review with search terms relevant to their implementation. Costs and certification information were supplemented by discussions with treatment developers and implementers., Results: All 12 EBTs had been examined for implementation feasibility, but only three had been examined for statewide scaling. Eleven had been studied in populations reflecting racial-ethnic diversity, but few had sufficient power for subgroup analyses to demonstrate effectiveness with these samples. All had certifying or licensing entities. The per-clinician costs of implementation ranged from $500 to $3,500, with overall ongoing costs ranging from $100 to $6,000. A fiscal analysis of three EBTs revealed hidden costs ranging from $5,000 to $24,000 per clinician, potentially limiting sustainability., Conclusions: The evidence necessary for embedding EBTs in state systems has notable gaps that may hinder sustainability. Research-funding agencies should prioritize studies that focus on the practical aspects of scaling to assist states as they retrain their workforces., Competing Interests: Dr. Horwitz reports receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Objective: The authors documented rates of sustained use of an evidence-based practice following training sponsored by New York State (NYS), and they identified clinician characteristics related to sustained use., Methods: Clinicians (N=89) who were employed in licensed NYS Office of Mental Health agencies serving children and adolescents and who were trained to proficiency in Managing and Adapting Practice (MAP) in 2016 were contacted between 9 and 18 months later and asked whether they were still using (users) or had stopped using (nonusers) MAP and their reason for doing so., Results: Responses were received from 57% of trainees and of those, 80% reported continued use of MAP. Score on the appeal subscale of the Evidence-Based Practices Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was the only significant difference between users and nonusers., Conclusions: Most clinicians reported sustained use of MAP. The EBPAS appeal subscale can be used to identify clinicians who are likely to discontinue use.

Integrating two distinct and complementary paradigms, science and engineering, may produce more effective outcomes for the implementation of evidence-based practices in health care settings. Science formalizes and tests innovations, whereas engineering customizes and optimizes how the innovation is applied tailoring to accommodate local conditions. Together they may accelerate the creation of an evidence-based healthcare system that works effectively in specific health care settings. We give examples of applying engineering methods for better quality, more efficient, and safer implementation of clinical practices, medical devices, and health services systems. A specific example was applying systems engineering design that orchestrated people, process, data, decision-making, and communication through a technology application to implement evidence-based depression care among low-income patients with diabetes. We recommend that leading journals recognize the fundamental role of engineering in implementation research, to improve understanding of design elements that create a better fit between program elements and local context.

Objective: Policy makers have increasingly turned to learning collaboratives (LCs) as a strategy for improving usual care through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. The purpose of this review was to characterize the state of the evidence for use of LCs in mental health care., Methods: A systematic search of major academic databases for peer-reviewed articles on LCs in mental health care generated 421 unique articles across a range of disciplines; 28 mental health articles were selected for full-text review, and 20 articles representing 16 distinct studies met criteria for final inclusion. Articles were coded to identify the LC components reported, the focus of the research, and key findings., Results: Most of the articles included assessments of provider- or patient-level variables at baseline and post-LC. Only one study included a comparison condition. LC targets ranged widely, from use of a depression screening tool to implementation of evidence-based treatments. Fourteen crosscutting LC components (for example, in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in quality improvement methods) were identified. The LCs reviewed reported including, on average, seven components, most commonly in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act cycles, multidisciplinary quality improvement teams, and data collection for quality improvement., Conclusions: LCs are being used widely in mental health care, although there is minimal evidence of their effectiveness and unclear reporting in regard to specific components. Rigorous observational and controlled research studies on the impact of LCs on targeted provider- and patient-level outcomes are greatly needed.

Dissemination of innovations is widely considered the sine qua non for system improvement. At least two dozen states are rolling out evidence-based mental health practices targeted at children and families using trainings, consultations, webinars, and learning collaboratives to improve quality and outcomes. In New York State (NYS) a group of researchers, policymakers, providers, and family support specialists have worked in partnership since 2002 to redesign and evaluate the children's mental health system. Five system strategies driven by empirically based practices and organized within a state-supported infrastructure have been used in the child and family service system with more than 2,000 providers: (a) business practices, (b) use of health information technologies in quality improvement, (c) specific clinical interventions targeted at common childhood disorders, (d) parent activation, and (e) quality indicator development. The NYS system has provided a laboratory for naturalistic experiments. We describe these initiatives, key findings and challenges, lessons learned for scaling, and implications for creating evidence-based implementation policies in state systems.