服务提供者对青少年心理健康治疗中基于测量的关键护理措施的使用、态度和自我效能:多地点研究。

Amanda Jensen-Doss, Elizabeth Casline, Grace S. Woodard, Dominique A. Phillips, Elizabeth Lane, Tessa Palafu, Catherine Waye, Vanessa Ramirez, Daniel M. Cheron, Kelsie Okamura
{"title":"服务提供者对青少年心理健康治疗中基于测量的关键护理措施的使用、态度和自我效能:多地点研究。","authors":"Amanda Jensen-Doss,&nbsp;Elizabeth Casline,&nbsp;Grace S. Woodard,&nbsp;Dominique A. Phillips,&nbsp;Elizabeth Lane,&nbsp;Tessa Palafu,&nbsp;Catherine Waye,&nbsp;Vanessa Ramirez,&nbsp;Daniel M. Cheron,&nbsp;Kelsie Okamura","doi":"10.1007/s10488-024-01354-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Measurement-based care (MBC) is an underutilized evidence-based practice, and current implementation efforts demonstrate limited success in increasing MBC use. A better understanding of MBC implementation determinants is needed to improve these efforts, particularly from studies examining the full range of MBC practices and that span multiple samples of diverse providers using different MBC systems. This study addressed these limitations by conducting a multi-site survey examining MBC predictors and use in youth treatment. Participants were 159 clinicians and care coordinators working in youth mental health care settings across the United States. Participants were drawn from three program evaluations of MBC implementation. Providers completed measures assessing use of five MBC practices (administering measures, viewing feedback, reviewing feedback in supervision, sharing feedback with clients in session, and using feedback to plan treatment), MBC self-efficacy, and MBC attitudes. Despite expectations that MBC should be standard care for all clients, providers reported only administering measures to 40–60% of clients on average, with practices related to the use of feedback falling in the 1–39% range. Higher MBC self-efficacy and more positive views of MBC practicality predicted higher MBC use, although other attitude measures were not significant predictors. Effects of predictors were not moderated by site, suggesting consistent predictors across implementation settings. Implications of study findings for future research and for the implementation of MBC are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"146 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Provider Use of, Attitudes Towards, and Self-efficacy with Key Measurement-based Care Practices in Youth Mental Health Treatment: A Multi-site Examination\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Jensen-Doss,&nbsp;Elizabeth Casline,&nbsp;Grace S. Woodard,&nbsp;Dominique A. Phillips,&nbsp;Elizabeth Lane,&nbsp;Tessa Palafu,&nbsp;Catherine Waye,&nbsp;Vanessa Ramirez,&nbsp;Daniel M. Cheron,&nbsp;Kelsie Okamura\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10488-024-01354-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Measurement-based care (MBC) is an underutilized evidence-based practice, and current implementation efforts demonstrate limited success in increasing MBC use. A better understanding of MBC implementation determinants is needed to improve these efforts, particularly from studies examining the full range of MBC practices and that span multiple samples of diverse providers using different MBC systems. This study addressed these limitations by conducting a multi-site survey examining MBC predictors and use in youth treatment. Participants were 159 clinicians and care coordinators working in youth mental health care settings across the United States. Participants were drawn from three program evaluations of MBC implementation. Providers completed measures assessing use of five MBC practices (administering measures, viewing feedback, reviewing feedback in supervision, sharing feedback with clients in session, and using feedback to plan treatment), MBC self-efficacy, and MBC attitudes. Despite expectations that MBC should be standard care for all clients, providers reported only administering measures to 40–60% of clients on average, with practices related to the use of feedback falling in the 1–39% range. Higher MBC self-efficacy and more positive views of MBC practicality predicted higher MBC use, although other attitude measures were not significant predictors. Effects of predictors were not moderated by site, suggesting consistent predictors across implementation settings. Implications of study findings for future research and for the implementation of MBC are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"146 - 158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-024-01354-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-024-01354-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于测量的护理(MBC)是一种未得到充分利用的循证实践,目前的实施工作表明,在提高 MBC 使用率方面取得的成功有限。我们需要更好地了解 MBC 实施的决定因素,以改进这些工作,特别是通过研究 MBC 的全部实践,以及使用不同 MBC 系统的不同提供者的多个样本。本研究针对这些局限性,开展了一项多地点调查,研究了青少年治疗中的 MBC 预测因素和使用情况。参与调查的有 159 名在全美青少年心理健康护理机构工作的临床医生和护理协调员。参与者来自三个 MBC 实施项目评估。医疗服务提供者完成了对五项 MBC 实践(实施测量、查看反馈、在督导中审查反馈、在治疗中与客户分享反馈以及使用反馈制定治疗计划)、MBC 自我效能感和 MBC 态度使用情况的评估。尽管人们期望 MBC 应该成为所有客户的标准护理,但提供者报告说,平均只有 40-60% 的客户实施了测量,与使用反馈相关的实践在 1-39% 之间。更高的MBC自我效能感和对MBC实用性更积极的看法预示着更高的MBC使用率,尽管其他态度测量并不是重要的预测因素。预测因素的影响不受实施地点的影响,这表明不同实施地点的预测因素是一致的。本文讨论了研究结果对未来研究和实施移动式生化武器的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Provider Use of, Attitudes Towards, and Self-efficacy with Key Measurement-based Care Practices in Youth Mental Health Treatment: A Multi-site Examination

Measurement-based care (MBC) is an underutilized evidence-based practice, and current implementation efforts demonstrate limited success in increasing MBC use. A better understanding of MBC implementation determinants is needed to improve these efforts, particularly from studies examining the full range of MBC practices and that span multiple samples of diverse providers using different MBC systems. This study addressed these limitations by conducting a multi-site survey examining MBC predictors and use in youth treatment. Participants were 159 clinicians and care coordinators working in youth mental health care settings across the United States. Participants were drawn from three program evaluations of MBC implementation. Providers completed measures assessing use of five MBC practices (administering measures, viewing feedback, reviewing feedback in supervision, sharing feedback with clients in session, and using feedback to plan treatment), MBC self-efficacy, and MBC attitudes. Despite expectations that MBC should be standard care for all clients, providers reported only administering measures to 40–60% of clients on average, with practices related to the use of feedback falling in the 1–39% range. Higher MBC self-efficacy and more positive views of MBC practicality predicted higher MBC use, although other attitude measures were not significant predictors. Effects of predictors were not moderated by site, suggesting consistent predictors across implementation settings. Implications of study findings for future research and for the implementation of MBC are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
期刊最新文献
Challenges when Combining Expertise to Provide Integrated Care for Youth At-Risk and Their Family: A Qualitative Study. Advancing Youth Peer Advocacy and Support Services: Responding to NASEM Consensus Report on Launching Lifelong Health by Improving Health Care for Children, Youth, and Families (2024). The Use of Feedback in Mental Health Services: Expanding Horizons on Reach and Implementation Utilization of Mental Health Counseling Services Among Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Malaysia. Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap: The Individual Placement and Support Model.
×
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