Five decades of randomized trials research have produced dozens of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for youths. The EBPs produce respectable effects in traditional efficacy trials, but the effects shrink markedly when EBPs are tested in practice contexts with clinically referred youths and compared to usual clinical care. We considered why this might be the case. We examined relevant research literature and drew examples from our own research in practice settings. One reason for the falloff in EBP effects may be that so little youth treatment research has been done in the context of everyday practice. Researchers may have missed opportunities to learn how to make EBPs work well in the actual youth mental health ecosystem, in which so many real-world factors are at play that cannot be controlled experimentally. We sketch components and characteristics of that ecosystem, including clinically referred youths, their caregivers and families, the practitioners who provide their care, the organizations within which care is provided, the network of youth service systems (e.g., child welfare, education), and the policy context (e.g., reimbursement regulations and incentives). We suggest six strategies for future research on EBPs within the youth mental health ecosystem, including reliance on the deployment-focused model of development and testing, testing the mettle of current EBPs in everyday practice contexts, using the heuristic potential of usual care, testing restructured and integrative adaptations of EBPs, studying the use of treatment response feedback to guide clinical care, and testing models of the relation between policy change and EBP implementation.

No abstract

Combining intervention diffusion with change in clinical practice and public policy is an ambitious agenda. The impressive effort in Hawaii can be instructive, highlighting questions for a science of treatment dissemination. Among these questions, some of the most important are the following: (a) Who should be targeted for change? (e.g., “downstream” clinicians in practice, “upstream” clinicians in training, consumers, “brokers,” policy makers, or payers?); (b) What should be disseminated? (e.g., full evidence-based protocols, specific treatment elements or “kernels”?); and (c) Which procedures maximize change? (e.g., what combination and duration of teaching, supervision, consultation, and other support?). Ultimately, change efforts need to assess what aspects of practice were actually altered, what measurable impact the changes had on clinical outcomes, and what changes in practices and outcomes can be sustained over time.

Implementation of empirically supported transdiagnostic treatment may be sustained when supervision is transferred from external experts to trained clinic staff, potentially enhancing cost-effectiveness and staying power in clinical practice. (PsycINFO Database Record