Strategies specifically designed to facilitate the training of mental health practitioners in evidencebased practices (EBPs) have lagged behind the development of the interventions themselves. The current paper draws from an interdisciplinary literature (including medical training, adult education, and teacher training) to identify useful training and support approaches as well as important conceptual frameworks that may be applied to training in mental health. Theory and research findings are reviewed, which highlight the importance of continued consultation/ support following training workshops, congruence between the training content and practitioner experience, and focus on motivational issues. In addition, six individual approaches are presented with careful attention to their empirical foundations and potential applications. Common techniques are highlighted and applications and future directions for mental health workforce training and research are discussed. KeywordsTraining; Uptake; Workforce development; Implementation; Dissemination Over the past decades, the mental health field has seen a surge in the development and testing of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for the treatment of a wide variety of adult and youth psychosocial problems. Unfortunately, the advances in EBPs have largely outpaced the development of technologies designed to support their implementation by practitioners in real-world contexts (Fixsen et al. 2005;Ganju 2003;Gotham 2006). One result of this lag is a shortage of treatment providers who are adequately trained and supported to provide EBPs (Kazdin 2008;Weissman et al. 2006). Although reviews of implementation science identify practitioner training as a core implementation component (e.g., Fixsen et al. 2005), research has been limited and trainers in behavioral health repeatedly fail to make use of the existing strategies that have received empirical support (Stuart et al. 2004). The general lack of attention to evidence-based training and implementation methods has been cited as a major contributor to the "research-to-practice gap" commonly described in the mental health literature (Kazdin 2008;McHugh and Barlow 2010;Wandersman et al. 2008). NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptAdm Policy Ment Health. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptConsequently, efforts to develop or identify the most effective methods and strategies for training existing mental health practitioners in EBPs and/or the core skills underlying many EBPs (e.g., cognitive behavioral strategies, behavioral parenting strategies) have received increasing attention in the literature (e.g., Dimeff et al. 2009;Long 2008;Stirman et al. 2010).Not surprisingly, a disconnect between the scientific literature and the behavior of community professionals is not unique to mental health. Multiple disciplines, including the fields of medicine and education, grapple with how to train their workforces to implement practices that have received empirical support (e.g., Grimshaw et al. ...

No abstract

Wraparound is a team-based service planning and coordination process intended to improve outcomes for children and youth with serious emotional and behavioral disorders and support them in their homes, schools, and communities. Given the substantial resources devoted to implementing wraparound, a meta-analysis of outcome studies was conducted to better understand current empirical support for this process. A literature search identified seven studies between 1986 and 2008 that documented the effects of youth receiving wraparound compared to control groups. Mean treatment effects across outcome domains ranged from medium for youth living situation (0.44) to small for mental health outcomes (0.31), overall youth functioning (0.25), school functioning (0.27), and juvenile justice-related outcomes (0.21). The overall mean effect size across studies was 0.33. Interpretation of results was complicated by the lack of consistent documentation of implementation fidelity across studies and conditions, variations in target population and intended outcomes, and methodological concerns. The authors conclude that, though the published wraparound research base is expanding and findings are largely positive, it continues to be in a preliminary state of development. However, there are insufficient data to support calls for wraparound's acceptance or dismissal based on the strength of existing studies.