A Review of Mental Health Interventions in SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices

Hennessy, Kevin D.; Green-Hennessy, Sharon

doi:10.1176/ps.62.3.pss6203_0303

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Well‐curated lists are updated frequently and provide a mechanism for efficiently scanning the literature as well as a process for submitting new evidence when such reviews are underway. Moreover, they provide a key resource for policy makers seeking to understand evidence relevant to legislative efforts (Hennessy and Green‐Hennessy ). Yet strategic reviews are not without cost.…”

Section: Strategic Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Rigor to the Use of Evidence in Policy Making: Translating Early Evidence

Crowley

Scott

2017

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond the evidence provided by randomized controlled trials, there is a need for supplementing and contextualizing efficacy findings through early evidence. This may include evidence of program costs, quality implementation processes, and impact of programs on different groups. This article considers the Quality and Impact of Component Evidence Assessment and other exemplary efforts for translating early evidence for policy making within a common framework. This framework includes processes for strategic review, development of guiding standards on the quality of evidence, and active communication with policy makers.

show abstract

Section: Strategic Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Rigor to the Use of Evidence in Policy Making: Translating Early Evidence

Crowley

Scott

2017

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This review primarily described the Top-Tier Initiative, rather than the comparing existing EBPRs. Finally, a 2011 review of interventions included in the National Registry of Evidence-Based Practices and Programs (NREPP) did not deeply consider the structure of the register itself (Hennessy & Green-Hennessy, 2011), but did provide insight that was important for supporting implementation of EBPRs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Burkhardt

Schröter

Magura

et al. 2015

Evaluation and Program Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 and meet the needs of decision makers. However, much needs to be done to improve the ability of the registers to fully realize their purpose.

show abstract

“…Several recent reviews of EBPRs, primarily focused on federally sponsored registers - such as the National Register of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, the What Works Clearinghouse, and Social Programs that Work - found needs for more transparency in how such registers assess program effectiveness, in their use of evidence-based standards, and in how information is disseminated to the public (United States Government Accountability Office, 2009 & 2010; Hennessy & Green-Hennessy, 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Means

Magura

Burkhardt

et al. 2015

Evaluation and Program Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

A Review of Mental Health Interventions in SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices

Abstract: NREPP represents a practical tool for organizations seeking to initiate or expand their use of evidence-based services. Periodic studies of listed interventions may help to identify programmatic gaps in NREPP.

Cited by 18 publications

References 5 publications

Bringing Rigor to the Use of Evidence in Policy Making: Translating Early Evidence

Bringing Rigor to the Use of Evidence in Policy Making: Translating Early Evidence

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About