State Department and Provider Agency Utilization of Evidence-Based Program Registries in Behavioral Healthcare and Child Welfare.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1177/01632787221085754
Stephen Magura, Miranda J Lee, Ruqayyah N Abu-Obaid, John Landsverk, Whitney DeCamp, Jennifer Rolls-Reutz, Brandn Green, Charles Ingoglia, Vera Hollen, Anne Flagg
{"title":"State Department and Provider Agency Utilization of Evidence-Based Program Registries in Behavioral Healthcare and Child Welfare.","authors":"Stephen Magura,&nbsp;Miranda J Lee,&nbsp;Ruqayyah N Abu-Obaid,&nbsp;John Landsverk,&nbsp;Whitney DeCamp,&nbsp;Jennifer Rolls-Reutz,&nbsp;Brandn Green,&nbsp;Charles Ingoglia,&nbsp;Vera Hollen,&nbsp;Anne Flagg","doi":"10.1177/01632787221085754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidence-based program registries (EBPRs) are web-based compilations of behavioral healthcare programs/interventions that rely on research-based criteria to rate program efficacy or effectiveness for support of programmatic decision-making. The objective was to determine the extent to which behavioral health decision-makers access EBPRs and to understand whether and exactly how they use the information obtained from EPBRs. Single State Authorities (SSAs) and service provider agencies in the areas of behavioral health and child welfare were recruited nationally. Senior staff (n = 375) responsible for the selection and implementation of programs and/or policies were interviewed by telephone concerning their visits (if any) to 28 relevant EBPRs, the types of information they were seeking, whether they found it, and how they may have used that information to effect changes in their organizations. At least one EBPR was visited by 80% of the respondents, with a median of three different registers being visited. Most visitors (55%) found all the information they were seeking; those who did not desired more guidance or tools for individual program implementation or were unable to locate the program or practice that they were seeking. Most visitors (65%) related using the information obtained to make changes in their organizations, in particular to select, start or change a program, or to support the adoption or improvement of evidence-based clinical practices. EBPRs were shown to be important resources for dissemination of research-based program effectiveness data, leading to increased use of evidence-based practices in the field, but the study also identified needs for greater awareness of EBPRs generally and for more attention to implementation of specific recommended programs and practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787221085754","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Evidence-based program registries (EBPRs) are web-based compilations of behavioral healthcare programs/interventions that rely on research-based criteria to rate program efficacy or effectiveness for support of programmatic decision-making. The objective was to determine the extent to which behavioral health decision-makers access EBPRs and to understand whether and exactly how they use the information obtained from EPBRs. Single State Authorities (SSAs) and service provider agencies in the areas of behavioral health and child welfare were recruited nationally. Senior staff (n = 375) responsible for the selection and implementation of programs and/or policies were interviewed by telephone concerning their visits (if any) to 28 relevant EBPRs, the types of information they were seeking, whether they found it, and how they may have used that information to effect changes in their organizations. At least one EBPR was visited by 80% of the respondents, with a median of three different registers being visited. Most visitors (55%) found all the information they were seeking; those who did not desired more guidance or tools for individual program implementation or were unable to locate the program or practice that they were seeking. Most visitors (65%) related using the information obtained to make changes in their organizations, in particular to select, start or change a program, or to support the adoption or improvement of evidence-based clinical practices. EBPRs were shown to be important resources for dissemination of research-based program effectiveness data, leading to increased use of evidence-based practices in the field, but the study also identified needs for greater awareness of EBPRs generally and for more attention to implementation of specific recommended programs and practices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国务院和提供机构在行为保健和儿童福利中利用循证方案登记。
基于证据的项目登记(ebpr)是基于网络的行为医疗保健项目/干预的汇编,它依赖于基于研究的标准来评估项目的有效性或有效性,以支持项目决策。目的是确定行为健康决策者访问epbr的程度,并了解他们是否以及确切地如何使用从epbr获得的信息。在全国范围内招募了行为健康和儿童福利领域的单一国家主管机构和服务提供机构。负责选择和实施计划和/或政策的高级职员(n = 375)通过电话采访了他们对28个相关ebpr的访问(如果有的话),他们正在寻找的信息类型,他们是否找到了这些信息,以及他们如何使用这些信息来影响他们组织的变化。80%的受访者至少访问了一个EBPR,访问了三个不同的登记册的中位数。大多数访问者(55%)找到了他们想要的所有信息;那些不需要更多的指导或工具来实现个人计划的人,或者无法找到他们正在寻找的计划或实践的人。大多数访问者(65%)表示使用获得的信息来改变他们的组织,特别是选择、启动或改变一个项目,或支持采用或改进循证临床实践。ebpr被证明是传播基于研究的项目有效性数据的重要资源,导致该领域更多地使用基于证据的实践,但研究也确定了需要提高对ebpr的普遍认识,并更多地关注具体推荐项目和实践的实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
The Use of Contribution Analysis in Evaluating Health Interventions: A Scoping Review. Impact of Multi-point Nursing Strategies Under a Clinical Problem-Solving Framework on Adverse Events Associated With Thyroid Nodule Resection. Real Patient Participation in Workplace-Based Assessment of Health Professional Trainees: A Scoping Review. The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Self-Perceived Barriers for Physical Activity Questionnaire. Factors Associated With Agreement Between Parent and Childhood Cancer Survivor Reports on Child's Health Related Quality of Life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1