Background Extensive efforts have been made to train mental health providers in evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs); there is increasing attention focused on the methods through which providers are trained to deliver EBPs. Evaluating EBP training methods is an important step in determining which methods are most effective in increasing provider skill and improving client outcomes. Methods We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through June 2019 that evaluated EBP training methods to determine the effectiveness of EBP training modalities on implementation (provider and cost) and client outcomes. Eligible studies (N = 28) were evaluated for risk of bias, and the overall strength of evidence was assessed for each outcome. Data was extracted by a single investigator and confirmed by a second; risk of bias and strength of evidence were independently rated by two investigators and determined by consensus. Results Overall, EBP training improved short-term provider satisfaction, EBP knowledge, and adherence compared to no training or self-study of training materials (low to moderate strength of evidence). Training in an EBP did not increase treatment adoption compared to no training or self-study. No specific active EBP training modality was found to consistently increase provider EBP knowledge, skill acquisition/adherence, competence, adoption, or satisfaction compared to another active training modality. Findings were mixed regarding the additive benefit of post-training consultation on these outcomes. No studies evaluated changes in provider outcomes with regards to training costs and few studies reported on client outcomes. Limitations The majority of included studies had a moderate risk of bias and strength of evidence for the outcomes of interest was generally low or insufficient. Few studies reported effect sizes. The ability to identify the most effective EBP training methods was limited by low strength of evidence for the outcomes of interest and substantial heterogeneity among studies. Conclusions EBP training may have increased short-term provider satisfaction, EBP knowledge, and adherence though not adoption. Evidence was insufficient on training costs and client outcomes. Future research is needed on EBP training methods, implementation, sustainability, client outcomes, and costs to ensure efforts to train providers in EBPs are effective, efficient, and durable. Trial registration The protocol for this review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018093381).

Sexual victimization is prevalent on U.S. college campuses. Some women experience multiple sexual victimizations with heightened risk among those with prior victimization histories. One risk factor for sexual revictimization is alcohol use. Most research has focused on associations between alcohol consumption and revictimization. The current study’s objective was to understand potential mechanisms by which drinking confers risk for revictimization. We hypothesized that specific drinking consequences would predict risk for revictimization above and beyond the quantity of alcohol consumed. There were 162 binge-drinking female students (mean age = 20.21 years, 71.3% White, 36.9% juniors) from the University of Washington who were assessed for baseline victimization (categorized as childhood vs. adolescent victimization), quantity of alcohol consumed, and drinking consequences experienced, then assessed 30 days later for revictimization. There were 40 (24.6%) women who were revictimized in the following 30 days. Results showed that blackout drinking at baseline predicted incapacitated sexual revictimization among women previously victimized as adolescents, after accounting for quantity of alcohol consumed (OR = 1.79, 95% CI [1.07, 3.01]). Other drinking consequences were not strongly predictive of revictimization. Adolescent sexual victimization was an important predictor of sexual revictimization in college women; blackout drinking may confer unique risk for revictimization.

No abstract

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a critical concern among US veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recommends buprenorphine as a first-line treatment for OUD; however, only 35% of veterans with an OUD currently receive medication treatment. Practical barriers, including the capacity of providers to prescribe, may affect delivery of buprenorphine. We examined the current state of buprenorphine treatment within the VHA. Methods: National VHA administrative databases were queried to identify all providers credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine as of January 2018. Data were extracted on providers’ prescribing capacity (30, 100, or 275 patients concurrently) and number of patients who received buprenorphine in the prior 180 days. Results: A total of 1458 VHA providers were credentialed to prescribe buprenorphine. Forty-three percent of providers had not prescribed buprenorphine to any VHA patients in the past 180 days. Of those that prescribed to at least 1 patient, providers still prescribed to fewer patients than their capacity, regardless of their patient panel size (30, 100, or 275), prescribing to 18.5 patients on average. Conclusions: VHA providers are prescribing buprenorphine below their capacity. A multipronged approach to increase the number of credentialed providers and address barriers to prescribing is needed to ensure that veterans get effective treatment for OUD.

No abstract