Factors involved in clinician adoption and nonadoption of evidence‐based interventions in mental health.

Abstract

With the development of empirically supported psychological treatments and the growing mandate for evidence‐based practice, the dissemination and implementation of interventions with proven efficacy has assumed a growing sense of urgency. One barrier to the implementation of new procedures involves individual differences in the proclivity to adopt innovations, even in the context of supportive organizational structures. This article reviews the literature on the characteristics of adopters and nonadopters and factors that facilitate adoption of evidence‐based practice in the field of mental health. Information about reasons for adoption and nonadoption of evidence‐based practices in other areas of health‐care delivery is reviewed to inform strategies for improving rates of adoption of evidence‐based treatments by mental health providers.

Psychotherapies provided for eating disorders by community clinicians: Infrequent use of evidence-based treatment

“…A better understanding of why empirical evidence does not influence some clinicians' choice of therapeutic approaches is critical to help bridge the researchpractice divide and disseminate ESTs into community settings. As many of our participants had received little training in ED treatment, it is unclear to what degree clinicians did not base their approach on existing research about effective treatments because they were unaware of it, did not value or trust it, had limited resources or incompatible organizational demands, or were reluctant to adopt innovations (Gallo & Barlow, 2012;Wallace & von Ranson, 2012). Clinicians made clear their interest in obtaining training in ESTs for EDs.…”

Practice-based approach to assessing and treating nonadherence in pediatric regimens.

“…Being a successful adopter of EBP requires practitioners to have time to read and interpret research studies and subsequently apply these findings to their clinical practice. Clinicians may find it difficult to translate the well-controlled, narrowly defined studies into the real world scenarios they typically encounter in their practice (Berke, Rozell, Hogan, Norcross, & Karpiak, 2011; Gallo & Barlow, 2012). Indeed, the majority of randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of adherence promoting interventions in pediatric populations did not specifically target patients with identified adherence difficulties (Pai & McGrady, In press).…”

Family Skills Training Intervention for ADHD: Putting the Child Back into Child Therapy

“…The acceptability of child-focused interventions to parents, children, and providers is critical to its broad implementation [24,32]. Parents' ratings of acceptability and perceived effectiveness for interventions that include a child component are generally higher than those with only a parent focus [35].…”

“…cognitive-behavioral therapy), known to be ineffective for ADHD, additional clinician training would be required to implement the proposed child-focused behavioral approaches to intervention. Training difficulties have been reported as major barriers to clinician adoption of novel clinical procedures [32,33]. Utilizing a well-defined and structured treatment protocol for these child approaches allows these methods to be "packaged" to maximize accessibility for clinician training.…”

“…In evaluating the treatment effectiveness of child-focused interventions for ADHD, it is important to consider whether these treatments may be efficiently and appropriately implemented by providers, effective and acceptable to children and families, and supported by third-party payers [32]. Chorpita outlined three essential elements that are needed for an intervention to be deemed effective; these include an intervention's feasibility, generalizability, and its expected benefits [33].…”