Employing policy and purchasing levers to increase the use of evidence-based practices in community-based substance abuse treatment settings: reports from single state authorities

How State Administrative Structures Influence Implementation Outcomes for Wraparound Care Coordination

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine how inner-context (organizational) and outer-context (system) variables affect implementation outcomes for wraparound care coordination, an evidence-based strategy for youths with complex behavioral health needs.

METHODS

This study focused on data from 1,178 providers in 10 states that used one of two state-level administrative structures to implement wraparound care coordination; four states used care management entities (CMEs), and six used community mental health centers (CMHCs). Implementation completeness and duration were assessed with the Stages of Implementation Completion tool, and practice fidelity was assessed with the Coaching Observation Measure for Effective Teams. Multilevel models were used to compare CMEs with CMHCs at the state level in terms of implementation completeness, duration, and fidelity.

RESULTS

Compared with CMHC states, CME states had higher mean fidelity scores among practitioners (0.37 vs. 0.24; t=8.02, df=1,136, p<0.001), completed more implementation activities, and completed most implementation activities faster. Multilevel models found that the duration of the preimplementation phase was positively associated with fidelity (b<0.001, t=3.62, df=10.85, p=0.004) and that the duration of the implementation phase was negatively associated with fidelity (b<-0.001, t=-6.64, df=7.04, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results reinforce that systems-level strategies such as wraparound care coordination require considerable time to plan and implement and that state-level administrative structures meaningfully influence implementation outcomes and service quality. Taking the time to design hospitable inner and outer contexts is crucial to implementation efficiency, completeness, and quality.

Characteristics of mandates for evidence-based behavioral health interventions in 8 selected US states

PURPOSE

Demand for the use of evidence-based interventions (EBI) to address behavioral health issues remains high in the United States. States are primarily tasked with determining what constitutes EBIs on a state-by-state basis. This results in variations in what constitutes an EBI across states. The study's purpose is to determine the different ways in which state mandates for EBIs operationalize the concept of EBI, including the different levels of evidence that are required. The EBI mandates of 8 states were purposively selected for this study based on their Pew Charitable Trusts rating of EBI implementation.

RESULTS

64 % of EBI operationalizations included a quality of evidence requirement and 74 % included an impact reporting requirement. 52 % included both types of requirements, 35 % featured one type of requirement or the other, and 14 % included neither type of requirement. There was variation in the content of those requirements depending on the implied tier of evidence and the state's PMC rating category.

CONCLUSIONS

States need consistent operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI if they are to support the implementation of effective programming for behavioral health care. Additionally, states should produce more rigorous research-based operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI.

Multi-level alignment processes in the sustainment of a youth substance use treatment model following a federal implementation initiative: A mixed method study

INTRODUCTION

Government agencies have identified evidence-based practice (EBP) dissemination as a pathway to high-quality behavioral health care for youth. However, gaps remain about how to best sustain EBPs in treatment organizations in the U.S., especially in resource-constrained settings like publicly-funded youth substance use services. One important, but understudied, determinant of EBP sustainment is alignment: the extent to which multi-level factors that influence sustainment processes and outcomes are congruent, consistent, and/or coordinated. This study examined the role of alignment in U.S. states' efforts to sustain the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an EBP for youth substance use disorders, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

In this mixed methods study, the qualitative investigation preceded and informed the quantitative investigation. We interviewed state administrators and providers (i.e., supervisors and clinicians) from 15 states that had completed a federal A-CRA implementation grant; providers also completed surveys. The sample included 50 providers from 35 treatment organizations that reported sustaining A-CRA when the COVID-19 pandemic began, and 20 state administrators. In qualitative thematic analyses, we applied the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework to characterize alignment processes that interviewees described as influential on sustainment. We then used survey items to quantitatively explore the associations described in qualitative themes, using bivariate linear regressions.

RESULTS

At the time of interview, staff from 80 % of the treatment organizations (n = 28), reported sustaining A-CRA. Providers from both sustainer and non-sustainer organizations, as well as state administrators, described major sources of misalignment when state agencies ceased technical assistance post-grant, and because limited staff capacity conflicted with A-CRA's training model, which was perceived as time-intensive. Participants described the pandemic as exacerbating preexisting challenges, including capacity issues. Sustainer organizations reported seeking new funding to help sustain A-CRA. Quantitative associations between self-rated extent of sustainment and other survey items mostly followed the pattern predicted from the qualitative findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified longstanding A-CRA sustainment challenges, but treatment organizations already successfully sustaining A-CRA pre-pandemic largely continued. There are missed opportunities for state-level actors to coordinate with providers on the shared goal of EBP sustainment. A greater focus on alignment processes in research and practice could help states and providers strengthen sustainability planning.

Revisiting the policy ecology framework for implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings

BACKGROUND

Over the past three decades, policy actors and actions have been highly influential in supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in mental health settings. An early examination of these actions resulted in the Policy Ecology Framework (PEF), which was originally developed as a tactical primer for state and local mental health regulators in the field of child mental health. However, the policy landscape for implementation has evolved significantly since the original PEF was published. An interrogation of the strategies originally proposed in the PEF is necessary to provide an updated menu of strategies to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of policy action and promote system improvement.

OBJECTIVES

This paper builds upon the original PEF to address changes in the policy landscape for the implementation of mental health EBPs between 2009 and 2022. We review the current state of policy strategies that support the implementation of EBPs in mental health care and outline key areas for policy-oriented implementation research. Our review identifies policy strategies at federal, state, agency, and organizational levels, and highlights developments in the social context in which EBPs are implemented. Furthermore, our review is organized around some key changes that occurred across each PEF domain that span organizational, agency, political, and social contexts along with subdomains within each area.

DISCUSSION

We present an updated menu of policy strategies to support the implementation of EBPs in mental health settings. This updated menu of strategies considers the broad range of conceptual developments and changes in the policy landscape. These developments have occurred across the organizational, agency, political, and social contexts and are important for policymakers to consider in the context of supporting the implementation of EBPs. The updated PEF expands and enhances the specification of policy levers currently available, and identifies policy targets that are underdeveloped (e.g., de-implementation and sustainment) but are becoming visible opportunities for policy to support system improvement. The updated PEF clarifies current policy efforts within the field of implementation science in health to conceptualize and better operationalize the role of policy in the implementation of EBPs.

Drug treatment service procurement: A systematic review of models, goals, and outcomes

Aim: To explore the goals and outcomes of public procurement of drug treatment services in OECD countries. The study explores how these complex services are procured and delivered. Methods and data: A systematic review of the literature (1990-2020) identified four partly overlapping models of drug treatment service procurement that are here labelled traditional, value-based, outcome-based, and innovative. Results: Even though different forms of drug treatment services procurement are common, only 12 empirical studies that focused on procurement were found. The four models differ in their approaches to design and performance specifications and the role of competition and collaboration in the co-creation of value. Conclusions: Competition and incentives improve neither the efficiency nor the quality or the outcomes of complex drug treatment services. Whereas many studies focus on payment mechanisms, there are important research gaps that relate to the co-creation of value with and for the service-users and other stakeholders.

References to Evidence-based Program Registry (EBPR) websites for behavioral health in U.S. state government statutes and regulations

BACKGROUND AND AIM

U.S. state governments have the responsibility to regulate and license behavioral healthcare interventions, such as for addiction and mental illness, with increasing emphasis on implementing evidence-based programs (EBPs). A serious obstacle to this is lack of clarity or agreement about what constitutes "evidence-based." The study's purpose was to determine the extent to which and in what contexts web-based Evidence-based Program Registries (EBPRs) are referenced in state government statutes and regulations ("mandates") concerning behavioral healthcare. Examples are: What Works Clearinghouse; National Register of Evidence-based Programs and Practices; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

METHODS

The study employed the Westlaw Legal Research Database to search for 30 known EBPR websites relevant to behavioral healthcare within the statutes and regulations of all 50 states.

RESULTS

There was low prevalence of EBPR references in state statutes and regulations pertaining to behavioral healthcare; 20 states had a total of 33 mandates that referenced an EBPR. These mandates usually do not rely on an EBPR as the sole acceptable source for classifying a program or practice as "evidence-based." Instead, EBPRs were named in conjunction with internal state or external sources of information about putative program effectiveness, which may be less valid than EBPRs, to determine what is "evidence-based."

CONCLUSION

Greater awareness of scientifically - based EBPRs and greater understanding of their advantages need to be fostered among state legislators and regulators charged with making policy to increase or improve the use of evidence-based programs and practices in behavioral healthcare in the U.S.

Utilization of Evidence-based Intervention Criteria in U.S. Federal Grant Funding Announcements for Behavioral Healthcare

Recent U.S. federal government policy has required or recommended the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), so that it is important to determine the extent to which this priority is reflected in actual federal solicitations for intervention funding, particularly for behavioral healthcare interventions. Understanding how well such policies are incorporated in federal opportunity announcements (FOAs) for grant funding could improve compliance with policy and increase the societal use of evidence-based interventions for behavioral healthcare. FOAs for discretionary grants (n = 243) in fiscal year 2021 were obtained from the Grants.gov website for 44 federal departments, agencies and sub-agencies that were likely to fund interventions in behavioral health-related areas. FOAs for block/formula grants to states that included behavioral healthcare (n = 17) were obtained from the SAM.gov website. Across both discretionary and block grants, EBIs were required in 60% and recommended in 21% of these FOAs for funding. Numerous different terms were used to signify EBIs by the FOAs, with the greatest variation occurring among the block grants. Lack of adequate elaboration or definition of alternative EBI terms prominently characterized FOAs issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, although less so for those issued by the Departments of Justice and Education. Overall, 43% of FOAs referenced evidence-based program registers on the web, which are scientifically credible sources of EBIs. Otherwise, most of the remaining elaborations of EBI terms in these FOAs were quite brief, often idiosyncratic, and not scientifically vetted. The FOAs generally adhered to federal policy requiring or encouraging the use of EBIs for funding requests. However, an overall pattern showing lack or inadequate elaboration of terms signifying EBIs makes it difficult for applicants to comply with federal policies regarding use of EBIs for behavioral healthcare.

State behavioral health agency website references to evidence-based program registers

PURPOSE

Evidence-based program registers (EBPRs) are important tools for facilitating the use of evidence-based practices or programs (EBPs) by state statutory agencies responsible for behavioral healthcare, broadly defined as substance misuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS prevention, child welfare, and offender rehabilitation. There are currently no data on the purposes for which such state agencies reference EBPRs on their official websites.

METHOD

A webscraping method was used to identify and classify relevant "hits", defined as a state behavioral health webpage with single or multiple references to a study EBPR. A total of 778 hits (unique combinations of webpage and register) were coded. Up to three codes were applied to each hit for the "reasons for the EBPR reference" (EBPR use) dimension, one code was applied to each hit for the "purpose of the EBPR reference" and "intended audience of the webpage containing the hit" dimensions, and up to two codes were applied to each hit for the "funding mentions" dimension.

RESULTS

Three EBPRs out of 28 accounted for 73.6% of the hits. The most frequent reason for referencing EBPRs were as a resource for selecting EBPs or validating existing programs and practices. The references tended to appear in reports from the state, in training materials, or guidelines. The references tended to address broad groups of behavioral healthcare professionals. EBPRs were frequently referenced in the context of federal block grants or other federal funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing state agencies' awareness and use of the entire range of existing EBPRs may improve implementation of EBPs nationally.

Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND

The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts.

METHODS

We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature.

RESULTS

A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components.

CONCLUSIONS

This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.

Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND

The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts.

METHODS

We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature.

RESULTS

A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components.

CONCLUSIONS

This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.

Changing course: supporting a shift to environmental strategies in a state prevention system

Background

This study examines how the North Carolina state prevention system responded to a policy shift from individual-level prevention strategies to environmental strategies from the perspective of the organizations implementing the policy shift.

Methods

We use two data sources. First, we conducted interviews to collect qualitative data from key informants. Second, we used prevention provider agency expenditure data from the year the shift was announced and the following year.

Results

The interviews allowed us to identify effective features of policy change implementation in complex systems, such as the need for clear communication and guidance about the policy changes. Our interview and expenditure analyses also underscore variation in the level of guidance and oversight provided by implementing agencies to prevention providers.

Conclusions

Our analyses suggest that more active monitoring and oversight may have facilitated more consistent implementation of the policy shift toward greater use of environmental prevention strategies.

State Adoption of Incentives to Promote Evidence-Based Practices in Behavioral Health Systems

OBJECTIVE

Despite the critical role behavioral health care payers can play in creating an incentive to use evidence-based practices (EBPs), little research has examined which incentives are used in public mental health systems, the largest providers of mental health care in the United States.

METHODS

The authors surveyed state mental health directors from 44 states about whether they used any of seven strategies to increase the use of EBPs. Participants also ranked attributes of each incentive on the basis of key characteristics of diffusion of innovation theory (perceived advantage, simplicity, compatibility, observability, and gradually implementable) and perceived effectiveness.

RESULTS

Almost three-quarters of state directors endorsed using at least one financial incentive; most paid for training and technical assistance. Few used other incentives. Strategies perceived as simple and compatible were more readily adopted. Enhanced rates and paying for better outcomes were perceived as the most effective but were the least deployed, suggesting that simplicity and organizational compatibility may be the most decisive factors when choosing incentives.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers are not using the incentives they perceive as most effective, and they are mostly using only one strategy for reasons of simplicity and compatibility. Future work should focus on barriers to measurement that likely hinder the adoption and implementation of paying for better outcomes and enhanced reimbursement rates, with the ultimate goal of measuring the effectiveness of incentives on EBP implementation efforts.

State-Targeted Funding and Technical Assistance to Increase Access to Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

As the United States grapples with an opioid epidemic, expanding access to effective treatment for opioid use disorder is a major public health priority. Identifying effective policy tools that can be used to expand access to care is critically important. This article examines the relationship between state-targeted funding and technical assistance and adoption of three medications for treating opioid use disorder: oral naltrexone, injectable naltrexone, and buprenorphine.

METHODS

This study draws from the 2013-2014 wave of the National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, a nationally representative, longitudinal study of substance use disorder treatment programs. The sample includes data from 695 treatment programs (85.5% response rate) and representatives from single-state agencies in 49 states and Washington, D.C. (98% response rate). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationships of single-state agency targeted funding and technical assistance to availability of opioid use disorder medications among treatment programs.

RESULTS

State-targeted funding was associated with increased program-level adoption of oral naltrexone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.49-6.60, p=.004) and buprenorphine (AOR=2.47, 95% CI=1.31-4.67, p=.006). Buprenorphine adoption was also correlated with state technical assistance to support medication provision (AOR=1.18, 95% CI=1.00-1.39, p=.049).

CONCLUSIONS

State-targeted funding for medications may be a viable policy lever for increasing access to opioid use disorder medications. Given the historically low rates of opioid use disorder medication adoption in treatment programs, single-state agency targeted funding is a potentially important tool to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with opioid disorders and misuse.

Promoting Adoption of Medication for Opioid and Alcohol Use Disorders Through System Change

OBJECTIVE

The Medication Research Partnership (MRP), a collaboration between a national commercial health plan and nine addiction treatment centers, implemented organizational and system changes to promote use of federally approved medications for treatment of alcohol and opioid use disorders.

METHOD

A difference-in-differences analysis examined change over time in the percentage of patients receiving a prescription medication for alcohol or opioid use disorders treated in MRP (n = 9) and comparison (n = 15) sites.

RESULTS

MRP clinics experienced a 2.4-fold increase in patients receiving an alcohol or opioid prescription (13.2% at baseline to 31.7% at 3 years after MRP initiation); comparison clinics experienced significantly less change (17.6% to 23.5%) with an adjusted difference-in-differences of 12.5% (95% CI [5.4, 19.6], p = .001). MRP sites increased the patients with prescriptions to treat opioid use disorder from 17.0% (baseline) to 36.8% (3 years after initiation), with smaller changes observed in comparison sites (23.2% to 24.0%) and a 3-year post-initiation adjusted difference-in-differences of 19% (95% CI [8.5, 29.5], p = .000). Medications for alcohol use disorders increased in both MRP (9.0% to 26.5%) and comparison sites (11.4% to 23.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Promoting the use of medications to support recovery required complex interventions. The Advancing Recovery System Change Model, initially developed in publicly funded systems of care, was successfully adapted for commercial sector use. The model provides a framework for providers and commercial health plans to collaborate and increase patient access to medications.

Barriers and Facilitators to Tobacco Cessation in a Nationwide Sample of Addiction Treatment Programs

INTRODUCTION

Smoking rates among addiction treatment clients are 3-4 times higher than those of the general population. Recent studies indicate that ceasing tobacco use during treatment may improve recovery outcomes. Across the United States, publicly funded addiction treatment programs vary widely in terms of their tobacco policies and tobacco cessation services offered to clients.

METHODS

The study reported here is the qualitative component of a larger study. Twenty-four programs were recruited from a random sample of publicly funded programs participating in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network. Semi-structured interviews were administered by phone to program directors. ATLAS.ti software was used to facilitate thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

FINDINGS

While all directors expressed interest in helping clients to quit smoking, they cited numerous barriers to implementing tobacco policies and services. These included smoking culture, client resistance, lack of resources, staff smoking, and environmental barriers. Directors also cited several factors that they believed would support tobacco cessation. These included financial support, enhanced leadership, and state mandates against smoking in addiction treatment programs.

CONCLUSION

Addiction treatment programs are beginning to place more emphasis on tobacco cessation during treatment. However, furthering this goal requires substantial infrastructural and cultural change. These qualitative study findings may help to inform Single State Agencies (SSAs) to support publicly funded addiction treatment programs in their tobacco cessation efforts. In order to maximize effectiveness, state-level policies regarding tobacco cessation during treatment should be informed by ongoing dialogue between service providers and SSAs.

A Longitudinal Study of State Strategies and Policies to Accelerate Evidence-Based Practices in the Context of Systems Transformation

OBJECTIVE

To profile state agency efforts to promote implementation of three evidence-based practices (EBPs): screening and brief intervention (SBIRT), psychosocial interventions, and medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Primary data collected from representatives of 50 states and the District of Columbia's Single State Authorities from 2007 to 2009.

STUDY DESIGN/DATA COLLECTION

The study used mixed methods, in-depth, semistructured interviews and quantitative surveys. Interviews assessed state and provider strategies to accelerate implementation of EBPs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Statewide implementation of psychosocial interventions and MAT increased significantly over 3 years. In the first two assessments, states that contracted directly with providers were more likely to link use of EBPs to reimbursement, and states with indirect contract, through counties and other entities, increased recommendations, and some requirements for provision of specific EBPs. The number of states using legislation as a policy lever to promote EBPs was unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care reform and implementation of parity in coverage increases access to treatment for alcohol and drug use. Science-based substance abuse treatment will become even more crucial as payers seek consistent quality of care. This study provides baseline data on service delivery, contracting, and financing as state agencies and treatment providers prepare for implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Comparing rating paradigms for evidence-based program registers in behavioral health: evidentiary criteria and implications for assessing programs

Decision makers need timely and credible information about the effectiveness of behavioral health interventions. Online evidence-based program registers (EBPRs) have been developed to address this need. However, the methods by which these registers determine programs and practices as being “evidence-based” has not been investigated in detail. This paper examines the evidentiary criteria EBPRs use to rate programs and the implications for how different registers rate the same programs. Although the registers tend to employ a standard Campbellian hierarchy of evidence to assess evaluation results, there is also considerable disagreement among the registers about what constitutes an adequate research design and sufficient data for designating a program as evidence-based. Additionally, differences exist in how registers report findings of “no effect,” which may deprive users of important information. Of all programs on the 15 registers that rate individual programs, 79% appear on only one register. Among a random sample of 100 programs rated by more than one register, 42% were inconsistently rated by the multiple registers to some degree.

An overview of evidence-based program registers (EBPRs) for behavioral health

Evaluations of behavioral health interventions have identified many that are potentially effective. However, clinicians and other decision makers typically lack the time and ability to effectively search and synthesize the relevant research literature. In response to this opportunity, and to increasing policy and funding pressures for the use of evidence-based practices, a number of “what works” websites have emerged to assist decision makers in selecting interventions with the highest probability of benefit. However, these registers as a whole are not well understood. This article, which represents phase one of a concurrent mixed methods study, presents a review of the scopes, structures, dissemination strategies, uses, and challenges faced by evidence-based registers in the behavioral health disciplines. The major findings of this study show that in general, registers of evidence-based practices are able, to a degree, to identify the most effective practices meet this need to a degree. However, much needs to be done to improve the ability of the registers to fully realize their purpose.

Implementing a continuum of evidence-based psychosocial interventions for people with severe mental illness: part 2-review of critical implementation issues

OBJECTIVE

In North America and internationally, efforts have been made to reduce the gaps between knowledge of psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs) and the delivery of such services in routine mental health practice. Part 2 of this review identifies key issues for stakeholders to consider when implementing comprehensive psychosocial EBPs for people with severe mental illness (SMI).

METHOD

A rapid review of the literature was conducted. Searches were carried out in MEDLINE and PsycINFO for reports published between 1990 and 2012 using key words related to SMI, and psychosocial practices and implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to structure findings according to key domains and constructs known to influence the implementation process.

RESULTS

The CFIR allowed us to identify 17 issues reflecting more than 30 constructs of the framework that were viewed as influential to the process of implementing evidence-based psychosocial interventions for people with SMI. Issues arising at different levels of influence (intervention, individual, organizational, and system) and at all phases of the implementation process (planning, engagement, execution, and evaluation) were found to play important roles in implementation.

CONCLUSION

The issues identified in this review should be taken into consideration by stakeholders when engaging in efforts to promote uptake of new psychosocial EBPs and to widen the range of effective psychosocial services available in routine mental health care.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

Background

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

Methods

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

Results

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

Conclusions

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

BACKGROUND

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

RESULTS

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

Service integration for the dually diagnosed

The needs of dually diagnosed clients in mental health services have been and remain a focus for service development and improvement in Australia. The Council of Australian Governments committed to a five-year National Action Plan on Mental Health with a $1.8 billion injection into mental health services. In Australia there have been great advances in the service initiatives and service deliverables to those clients who experience a dual diagnosis. These advances include that dual diagnosis is systematically identified and responded to in a timely, evidence-based manner as a core business in mental health and alcohol and other drug services. These advances are brought to life by specialist mental health and alcohol and other drug services that establish effective partnerships and agreed mechanisms to support integrated care and collaborative practice. Here, four case studies are offered as a means of illustrating the ways in which projects undertaken in local community health services have approached dual diagnosis treatment for clients. These case studies reflect how cooperation and cross-referral between services, as well as effective management of dual diagnosis clients by suitably qualified staff can produce benefits to clients who use the service.