The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study.

UnlabelledABSTBACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices have not been routinely adopted in community mental health organizations despite the support of scientific evidence and in some cases even legislative or regulatory action. We examined the association of clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice with organizational culture, climate, and other characteristics in a nationally representative sample of mental health organizations in the United States.MethodsIn-person, group-administered surveys were conducted with a sample of 1,112 mental health service providers in a nationwide sample of 100 mental health service institutions in 26 states in the United States. The study examines these associations with a two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analysis of responses to the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) at the individual clinician level as a function of the Organizational Social Context (OSC) measure at the organizational level, controlling for other organization and clinician characteristics.ResultsWe found that more proficient organizational cultures and more engaged and less stressful organizational climates were associated with positive clinician attitudes toward adopting evidence-based practice.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that organizational intervention strategies for improving the organizational social context of mental health services may contribute to the success of evidence-based practice dissemination and implementation efforts by influencing clinician attitudes

Policy to Implementation: Evidence-Based Practice in Community Mental Health — Study Protocol

Background: Evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are not widely available in community mental health settings. In response to the call for implementation of evidence-based treatments in the United States, states and counties have mandated behavioral health reform through policies and other initiatives. Evaluations of the impact of these policies on implementation are rare. A systems transformation about to occur in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offers an important opportunity to prospectively study implementation in response to a policy mandate. Methods/design: Using a prospective sequential mixed-methods design, with observations at multiple points in time, we will investigate the responses of staff from 30 community mental health clinics to a policy from the Department of Behavioral Health encouraging and incentivizing providers to implement evidence-based treatments to treat youth with mental health problems. Study participants will be 30 executive directors, 30 clinical directors, and 240 therapists. Data will be collected prior to the policy implementation, and then at two and four years following policy implementation. Quantitative data will include measures of intervention implementation and potential moderators of implementation (i.e., organizational- and leader-level variables) and will be collected from executive directors, clinical directors, and therapists. Measures include self-reported therapist fidelity to evidence-based treatment techniques as measured by the Organizational Social Context Measurement System and the Implementation Climate Assessment, leader variables as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, attitudes towards EDTs as measured by the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale, and knowledge of EBTs as measured by the knowledge of Evidence-Based Services Questionnaire. Qualitative data will include semi-structured interviews with a subset of the sample to assess the implementation experience of high-, average-, and low-performing agencies. Mixed methods will be integrated through comparing and contrasting results from the two methods for each of the primary hypotheses in this study. Discussion: Findings from the proposed research will inform both future policy mandates around implementation and the support required for the success of these policies, with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of treatment provided to youth in the public sector

Practice-based evidence for children and adolescents: Advancing the research agenda in schools.

The American Psychological Association Task Force on Evidence- Based Practice for Children and Adolescents (2008) recommended a systems approach to enhancing care in order to improve outcomes for children and adolescents with mental health needs and redress persistent systemic problems with the structure of services. Recommendations for enhancing an ecological approach to the adoption and implementation of evidence-based practices are offered through increased attention to practice-based research frameworks for adoption and dissemination. Five criteria are discussed for providing acceptable evidence, including (a) systematic evidence searching and adoption of evidence-based prevention and intervention practices, (b) implementation and adherence to intervention integrity, (c) invoking standards for drawing inferences from interventions, (d) using quality assessments to measure outcomes, and (e) adopting formal data analysis procedures to assess intervention outcomes. Each criterion is illustrated with an example. Future research and policy agendas are outlined.Psycholog

Predictors of Community Therapists\u27 Use of Therapy Techniques in a Large Public Mental Health System

Importance Few studies have examined the effects of individual and organizational characteristics on the use of evidence-based practices in mental health care. Improved understanding of these factors could guide future implementation efforts to ensure effective adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based practices. Objective To estimate the relative contribution of individual and organizational factors on therapist self-reported use of cognitive-behavioral, family, and psychodynamic therapy techniques within the context of a large-scale effort to increase use of evidence-based practices in an urban public mental health system serving youth and families. Design, Setting, and Participants In this observational, cross-sectional study of 23 organizations, data were collected from March 1 through July 25, 2013. We used purposive sampling to recruit the 29 largest child-serving agencies, which together serve approximately 80% of youth receiving publically funded mental health care. The final sample included 19 agencies with 23 sites, 130 therapists, 36 supervisors, and 22 executive administrators. Main Outcomes and Measures Therapist self-reported use of cognitive-behavioral, family, and psychodynamic therapy techniques, as measured by the Therapist Procedures Checklist–Family Revised. Results Individual factors accounted for the following percentages of the overall variation: cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques, 16%; family therapy techniques, 7%; and psychodynamic therapy techniques, 20%. Organizational factors accounted for the following percentages of the overall variation: cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques, 23%; family therapy techniques, 19%; and psychodynamic therapy techniques, 7%. Older therapists and therapists with more open attitudes were more likely to endorse use of cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques, as were those in organizations that had spent fewer years participating in evidence-based practice initiatives, had more resistant cultures, and had more functional climates. Women were more likely to endorse use of family therapy techniques, as were those in organizations employing more fee-for-service staff and with more stressful climates. Therapists with more divergent attitudes and less knowledge about evidence-based practices were more likely to use psychodynamic therapy techniques. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that individual and organizational factors are important in explaining therapist behavior and use of evidence-based practices, but the relative importance varies by therapeutic technique

Care team and practice-level implementation strategies to optimize pediatric collaborative care: Study protocol for a cluster-randomized hybrid type III trial

BACKGROUND: Implementation facilitation is an effective strategy to support the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), but our understanding of multilevel strategies and the mechanisms of change within the black box of implementation facilitation is limited. This implementation trial seeks to disentangle and evaluate the effects of facilitation strategies that separately target the care team and leadership levels on implementation of a collaborative care model in pediatric primary care. Strategies targeting the provider care team (TEAM) should engage team-level mechanisms, and strategies targeting leaders (LEAD) should engage organizational mechanisms. METHODS: We will conduct a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial in a 2 × 2 factorial design to evaluate the main and interactive effects of TEAM and LEAD and test for mediation and moderation of effects. Twenty-four pediatric primary care practices will receive standard REP training to implement Doctor-Office Collaborative Care (DOCC) and then be randomized to (1) Standard REP only, (2) TEAM, (3) LEAD, or (4) TEAM + LEAD. Implementation outcomes are DOCC service delivery and change in practice-level care management competencies. Clinical outcomes are child symptom severity and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This statewide trial is one of the first to test the unique and synergistic effects of implementation strategies targeting care teams and practice leadership. It will advance our knowledge of effective care team and practice-level implementation strategies and mechanisms of change. Findings will support efforts to improve common child behavioral health conditions by optimizing scale-up and sustainment of CCMs in a pediatric patient-centered medical home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04946253 . Registered June 30, 2021

Unpacking Partnership, Engagement, and Collaboration Research to Inform Implementation Strategies Development: Theoretical Frameworks and Emerging Methodologies

Background: Partnership, engagement, and collaboration (PEC) are critical factors in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Despite a growing recognition that incorporating PEC strategies in D&I research is likely to increase the relevance, feasibility, impacts, and of evidence-based interventions or practices (EBIs, EBPs), conceptual frameworks and methodologies to guide the development and testing of PEC strategies in D&I research are lacking. To address this methodological gap, a review was conducted to summarize what we know, what we think we know, and what we need to know about PEC to inform D&I research.Methods: A cross-field scoping review, drawing upon a broad range of PEC related literature in health, was conducted. Publications reviewed focused on factors influencing PEC, and processes, mechanisms and strategies for promoting effective PEC. The review was conducted separately for three forms of partnerships that are commonly used in D&I research: (1) consumer-provider or patient-implementer partnership; (2) delivery system or implementation team partnership; and (3) sustainment/support or interagency/community partnership. A total of 39 studies, of which 21 were review articles, were selected for an in-depth review.Results: Across three forms of partnerships, four domains (cognitive, interpersonal/affective, behavioral, and contextual domains) were consistently identified as factors and strategies for promoting PEC. Depending on the stage (preparation or execution) and purpose of the partnership (regulating performance or managing maintenance), certain PEC strategies are more or less relevant. Recent developments of PEC frameworks, such as Partnership Stage of Change and multiple dynamic processes, provide more comprehensive conceptual explanations for PEC mechanisms, which can better guide PEC strategies selection and integration in D&I research.Conclusions: This review contributes to D&I knowledge by identifying critical domain factors, processes, or mechanisms, and key strategies for PEC, and offers a multi-level PEC framework for future research to build the evidence base. However, more research is needed to test PEC mechanisms