Brief Strategies for Reducing School Stress

Macklem, Gayle L.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65695-9_11

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, some authors have noted that EBPRs often differ in the criteria and standards they use to judge evidence of effectiveness and/or in the rigor with which they apply those criteria and standards (Buckley et al 2020; Burkhardt et al 2015; Macklem 2020; Means et al 2015; Neuhoff et al 2015; Stephenson 2017; Test et al 2015; Walker et al 2017; Westbrook et al 2017; Zack et al 2019). Second, EBPRs often do not include information necessary for implementation of programs, such as program costs, required staffing, and readiness for dissemination (Buckley et al 2020; Horne 2017; Macklem 2020; Neuhoff et al 2015; Paulsell et al 2017). Third, EBPRs may lack information about external validity, transportability of programs across contexts, and fit between programs and clinical contexts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifth, there is concern about the timeliness of generating or updating evidence reviews (Burkhardt et al 2015; Means et al 2015). Finally, ratings of individual interventions may differ across registers, and the terminology used to describe those ratings may vary across EBPRs as well (Buckley et al 2020; Macklem 2020; Means et al 2015; Stephenson 2017; Walker et al 2017; Zack et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

References to Evidence-based Program Registry (EBPR) Websites for Behavioral Health in U.S. State Government Statutes and Regulations

Lee

Maranda

Magura

et al. 2022

Journal of Applied Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U.S. state governments have the responsibility to regulate and license behavioral health care 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 health care. Examples are What Works Clearinghouse, National Register of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The study employed the Westlaw Legal Research Database to search for 30 known EBPR websites relevant to behavioral health care within the statutes and regulations of all 50 states. There was low prevalence of EBPR references in state statutes and regulations pertaining to behavioral health care; 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.” 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 health care in the United States.

show abstract