Federal spending on evidence-based practices (EBPs) provides significant returns by offsetting billions of dollars in societal impacts each year. Practices are deemed evidence-based because they have demonstrated their effectiveness in addressing various social and health-related challenges. Federal agencies often invest in EBP delivery through discretionary grants, but there is limited guidance on how to optimize these grants to support large-scale EBP implementation. To address this gap, the authors held focus groups with federal and state agency officials (using the findings from ongoing RAND research to frame their discussions) to gather and synthesize their recommendations on how to optimize federal grantmaking for EBP implementation. With the focus group participants, the authors identified seven policy recommendations for federal officials to consider when designing, awarding, and executing grants for EBP implementation, including capacity-building in service delivery organizations to sustain EBPs after grant funding ends. The authors also present real-world case examples to illustrate how funding agencies have put each recommendation into practice.

In this report, the authors present seven policy recommendations to optimize federal investment into large-scale implementation of evidence-based practices in health and social services that they identified with federal and state agency officials.

BackgroundSustained delivery of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) is essential to addressing the public health impacts of youth mental health problems, but is complicated by the limited and fragmented funding available to youth mental health service agencies. Supports are needed that can guide service agencies in accessing sustainable funding for EBTs. We conducted a pilot evaluation of the Fiscal Mapping Process, an Excel-based strategic planning tool that helps service agency leaders identify and coordinate financing strategies for their EBT programs.MethodPilot testing of the Fiscal Mapping Process was completed with 10 youth mental health service agencies over a 12-month period, using trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy or parent-child interaction therapy programs. Service agency representatives received initial training and monthly coaching in using the tool. We used case study methods to synthesize all available data (surveys, focus groups, coaching notes, document review) and contrast agency experiences to identify key findings through explanation building.ResultsKey evaluation findings related to the process and outcomes of using the Fiscal Mapping Process, as well as contextual influences. Process evaluation findings helped clarify the primary use case for the tool and identified the importance—and challenges—of engaging external collaborators. Outcome evaluation findings documented the impacts of the Fiscal Mapping Process on agency-reported sustainment capacities (strategic planning, funding stability), which fully explained reported improvements in outcomes (extent and likelihood)—although these impacts were incremental. Findings on contextual factors documented the influence of environmental and organizational capacities on engagement with the tool and concerns about equitable impacts, but also the view that the process could usefully generalize to other EBTs.ConclusionsOur pilot evaluation of the Fiscal Mapping Process was promising. In future work, we plan to integrate the tool into EBT implementation initiatives and test its impact on long-term sustainment outcomes across various EBTs, while increasing attention to equity considerations. Read More Subscribe to the Policy Currents newsletter Email Subscribe Related Content ResearchCoordination of Sustainable Financing for Evidence-Based Youth Mental Health Treatments: Protocol for Development and Evaluation of the Fiscal Mapping ProcessJan 7, 2022 Topics Adolescent HealthEvidence Based Health PracticeHealth Care FinancingMental Health Treatment Document Details Document Details Copyright: Alex R. Dopp, Maddison N. North, Marylou Gilbert, Jeanne S. Ringel, Jane F. Silovsky, Mellicent Blythe, Dan Edwards, Susan Schmidt, Beverly FunderburkPublisher: Sage JournalsAvailability: Non-RAND Year: 2024 Pages: 19 Document Number: EP-70489 Research conducted by RAND Health Care This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

ObjectiveContextual factors exert dynamic influences on sustainment of evidence-based practice (EBP) after grant funding ends (ie, funding cliffs), but how these factors change over time remains poorly understood. Exploring the factors that affect EBP sustainment trajectories can help explain how community-based treatment organizations navigate funding cliffs.MethodThe study sample comprised 51 community-based treatment organizations drawn from national cohorts that completed federal grants to implement the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), a youth substance use EBP. Interviews were conducted with clinical staff (N=129) across 2 or 3 annual waves. Interviews focused on staff perspectives about A-CRA sustainment. Based on interview field notes, a longitudinal thematic analysis was conducted to identify influences on organizational sustainment trajectories (ie, pivotal moments, transitions, driving forces, and slow burn processes).ResultsThe end of grant funding triggered numerous sustainment challenges. Pivotal moment events, such as receiving additional funding for A-CRA, helped mitigate the consequences of funding cliffs. Transitions, such as staff turnover, generally impeded sustainment, as organizations had to reinvest in A-CRA-trained staff. Other factors exerted effects that were either directly connected to A-CRA (driving forces), such as committed leadership that fostered staff buy-in, or were more indirectly related (slow burns), such as client population characteristics that made A-CRA delivery challenging.ConclusionThese results illustrate how interrelated processes influence EBP sustainment trajectories. Although organizations may exhibit a pattern of supports for sustainment of EBP, these factors can change over time and do not guarantee future sustainment. These findings also can inform strategies for strengthening EBP sustainment. Read More Subscribe to the Policy Currents newsletter Email Subscribe Related Content ResearchComparing Organization-Focused and State-Focused Financing Strategies on Provider-Level Reach of a Youth Substance Use Treatment Model: A Mixed-Method StudyOct 16, 2023 Topics Evidence Based Health PracticeSurvey Research MethodologyUnderage Substance Use Document Details Document Details Copyright: 兰德公司 ; Open AccessPublisher: Published by Elsevier IncAvailability: Non-RAND Year: 2024 Pages: 12 Document Number: EP-70439 Research conducted by RAND Health Care This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

BackgroundImplementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) within service systems is critical to population-level health improvements, but also challenging, especially for complex behavioural health interventions in low-resource settings. 'Mis-implementation' refers to poor outcomes from an EBP implementation effort; mis-implementation outcomes are an important, but largely untapped, source of information about how to improve knowledge exchange.Aims and ObjectivesWe present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioural health EBPs in US Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).MethodsWe adapted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and its Outcomes Addendum into a framework for mis-implementation and used it to structure the case summaries with information about the EBP and trial, mis-implementation outcomes, and associated determinants (barriers and facilitators). We compared the three cases to identify shared and unique mis-implementation factors.FindingsAcross cases, there was limited adoption and fidelity to the interventions, which led to eventual discontinuation. Barriers contributing to mis-implementation included intervention complexity, low buy-in from overburdened providers, lack of alignment between providers and leadership, and COVID-19-related stressors. Mis-implementation occurred earlier in cases that experienced both patient- and provider-level barriers, and that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.Discussion and ConclusionMultilevel determinants contributed to EBP mis-implementation in FQHCs, limiting the ability of these health systems to benefit from knowledge exchange. To minimise mis-implementation, knowledge exchange strategies should be designed around common, core barriers but also flexible enough to address a variety of site-specific contextual factors, and should be tailored to relevant audiences such as providers, patients, and/or leadership.

BackgroundImplementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) within service systems is critical to population-level health improvements, but also challenging, especially for complex behavioural health interventions in low-resource settings. 'Mis-implementation' refers to poor outcomes from an EBP implementation effort; mis-implementation outcomes are an important, but largely untapped, source of information about how to improve knowledge exchange.Aims and ObjectivesWe present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioural health EBPs in US Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).MethodsWe adapted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and its Outcomes Addendum into a framework for mis-implementation and used it to structure the case summaries with information about the EBP and trial, mis-implementation outcomes, and associated determinants (barriers and facilitators). We compared the three cases to identify shared and unique mis-implementation factors.FindingsAcross cases, there was limited adoption and fidelity to the interventions, which led to eventual discontinuation. Barriers contributing to mis-implementation included intervention complexity, low buy-in from overburdened providers, lack of alignment between providers and leadership, and COVID-19-related stressors. Mis-implementation occurred earlier in cases that experienced both patient- and provider-level barriers, and that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.Discussion and ConclusionMultilevel determinants contributed to EBP mis-implementation in FQHCs, limiting the ability of these health systems to benefit from knowledge exchange. To minimise mis-implementation, knowledge exchange strategies should be designed around common, core barriers but also flexible enough to address a variety of site-specific contextual factors, and should be tailored to relevant audiences such as providers, patients, and/or leadership. Read More Subscribe to the Policy Currents newsletter Email Subscribe Related Content CLARO Publications Topics Evidence Based Health PracticeHealth BehaviorsHealth Care FacilitiesPrimary Care Document Details Document Details Copyright: Alex R. Dopp, Grace Hindmarch, Karen Chan Osilla, Lisa S. Meredith, Jennifer K. Manuel, Kirsten Becker, Lina Tarhuni, Michael Schoenbaum, Miriam Komaromy, Andrea Cassells, Katherine E. WatkinsPublisher: Policy PressAvailability: Non-RAND Year: 2024 Pages: 21 Document Number: EP-70396 Research conducted by RAND Health Care This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

BackgroundEvidence-based treatments (EBTs) are critical to effectively address mental health problems among children and adolescents, but costly for mental health service agencies to implement and sustain. Financing strategies help agencies overcome cost-related barriers by obtaining financial resources to support EBT implementation and/or sustainment.Aims We sought to (i) understand how youth mental health system decision-makers involved with EBT implementation and sustainment view key features (e.g., relevance, feasibility) that inform financing strategy selection and (ii) compare service agency, funding agency, and intermediary representative perspectives. MethodTwo surveys were disseminated to 48 representatives across U.S. youth mental health service agencies, funding agencies, and intermediaries who were participating in a larger study of financing strategies. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered on 23 financing strategies through quantitative ratings and open-ended responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid content analysis. ResultsThe financing strategies rated as most relevant include braided funding streams, contracts for EBTs, credentialing/rostering providers, fee-for-service reimbursement (regular and increased), and grant funding. All other strategies were unfamiliar to 1/3 to 1/2 of participants. The six strategies were rated between somewhat and quite available, feasible, and effective for EBT sustainment. For sustaining different EBT components (e.g., delivery, materials), the mix of financing strategies was rated as somewhat adequate. Qualitative analysis revealed challenges with strategies being non-recurring or unavailable in representatives' regions. Ratings were largely similar across participant roles, though funding agency representatives were the most familiar with financing strategies.DiscussionDespite the breadth of innovative financing strategies, expert representatives within the youth mental health services ecosystem had limited knowledge of most options. Experts relied on strategies that were familiar but often did not adequately support EBT implementation or sustainment. These findings underscore more fundamental issues with under-resourced mental health systems in the U.S.; financing strategies can help agencies navigate EBT use but must be accompanied by larger-scale system reforms. Limitations include difficulties generalizing results due to using a small sample familiar with EBTs, high agreement as a potential function of snowball recruiting, and limited responses to the open-ended survey questions. Implications for Health Care Provision and UseAlthough EBTs have been found to effectively address mental health problems in children and adolescents, available strategies for financing their implementation and sustainment in mental health systems are insufficient. This constraint prevents many children and adolescents from receiving high-quality services. Implications for Health PoliciesFinancing strategies alone cannot solve systematic issues that prevent youth mental health service agencies from providing EBTs. Policy changes may be required, such as increased financial investment from the U.S. government into mental health services to support basic infrastructure (e.g., facility operations, measuring outcomes).Implications for Further ResearchFuture work should examine expert perspectives on EBT financing strategies in different contexts (e.g., substance use services), gathering targeted feedback on financing strategies that are less well known, and exploring topics such as strategic planning, funding stability, and collaborative decision-making as they relate to EBT implementation and sustainment.

Evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are critical to effectively address mental health problems among children and adolescents, but costly for mental health service agencies to implement and sustain. Financing strategies help agencies overcome cost-related barriers by obtaining financial resources to support EBT implementation and/or sustainment.,We sought to (i) understand how youth mental health system decision-makers involved with EBT implementation and sustainment view key features (e.g., relevance, feasibility) that inform financing strategy selection and (ii) compare service agency, funding agency, and intermediary representative perspectives.,Two surveys were disseminated to 48 representatives across U.S. youth mental health service agencies, funding agencies, and intermediaries who were participating in a larger study of financing strategies. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered on 23 financing strategies through quantitative ratings and open-ended responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid content analysis.,The financing strategies rated as most relevant include braided funding streams, contracts for EBTs, credentialing/rostering providers, fee-for-service reimbursement (regular and increased), and grant funding. All other strategies were unfamiliar to 1/3 to 1/2 of participants. The six strategies were rated between somewhat and quite available, feasible, and effective for EBT sustainment. For sustaining different EBT components (e.g., delivery, materials), the mix of financing strategies was rated as somewhat adequate. Qualitative analysis revealed challenges with strategies being non-recurring or unavailable in representatives' regions. Ratings were largely similar across participant roles, though funding agency representatives were the most familiar with financing strategies.,Despite the breadth of innovative financing strategies, expert representatives within the youth mental health services ecosystem had limited knowledge of most options. Experts relied on strategies that were familiar but often did not adequately support EBT implementation or sustainment. These findings underscore more fundamental issues with under-resourced mental health systems in the U.S.; financing strategies can help agencies navigate EBT use but must be accompanied by larger-scale system reforms. Limitations include difficulties generalizing results due to using a small sample familiar with EBTs, high agreement as a potential function of snowball recruiting, and limited responses to the open-ended survey questions.,Although EBTs have been found to effectively address mental health problems in children and adolescents, available strategies for financing their implementation and sustainment in mental health systems are insufficient. This constraint prevents many children and adolescents from receiving high-quality services.,Financing strategies alone cannot solve systematic issues that prevent youth mental health service agencies from providing EBTs. Policy changes may be required, such as increased financial investment from the U.S. government into mental health services to support basic infrastructure (e.g., facility operations, measuring outcomes).,Future work should examine expert perspectives on EBT financing strategies in different contexts (e.g., substance use services), gathering targeted feedback on financing strategies that are less well known, and exploring topics such as strategic planning, funding stability, and collaborative decision-making as they relate to EBT implementation and sustainment.

Evidence-based treatments (EBTs) are critical to effectively address mental health problems among children and adolescents, but costly for mental health service agencies to implement and sustain. Financing strategies help agencies overcome cost-related barriers by obtaining financial resources to support EBT implementation and/or sustainment.,We sought to (i) understand how youth mental health system decision-makers involved with EBT implementation and sustainment view key features (e.g., relevance, feasibility) that inform financing strategy selection and (ii) compare service agency, funding agency, and intermediary representative perspectives.,Two surveys were disseminated to 48 representatives across U.S. youth mental health service agencies, funding agencies, and intermediaries who were participating in a larger study of financing strategies. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered on 23 financing strategies through quantitative ratings and open-ended responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and rapid content analysis.,The financing strategies rated as most relevant include braided funding streams, contracts for EBTs, credentialing/rostering providers, fee-for-service reimbursement (regular and increased), and grant funding. All other strategies were unfamiliar to 1/3 to 1/2 of participants. The six strategies were rated between somewhat and quite available, feasible, and effective for EBT sustainment. For sustaining different EBT components (e.g., delivery, materials), the mix of financing strategies was rated as somewhat adequate. Qualitative analysis revealed challenges with strategies being non-recurring or unavailable in representatives' regions. Ratings were largely similar across participant roles, though funding agency representatives were the most familiar with financing strategies.,Despite the breadth of innovative financing strategies, expert representatives within the youth mental health services ecosystem had limited knowledge of most options. Experts relied on strategies that were familiar but often did not adequately support EBT implementation or sustainment. These findings underscore more fundamental issues with under-resourced mental health systems in the U.S.; financing strategies can help agencies navigate EBT use but must be accompanied by larger-scale system reforms. Limitations include difficulties generalizing results due to using a small sample familiar with EBTs, high agreement as a potential function of snowball recruiting, and limited responses to the open-ended survey questions.,Although EBTs have been found to effectively address mental health problems in children and adolescents, available strategies for financing their implementation and sustainment in mental health systems are insufficient. This constraint prevents many children and adolescents from receiving high-quality services.,Financing strategies alone cannot solve systematic issues that prevent youth mental health service agencies from providing EBTs. Policy changes may be required, such as increased financial investment from the U.S. government into mental health services to support basic infrastructure (e.g., facility operations, measuring outcomes).,Future work should examine expert perspectives on EBT financing strategies in different contexts (e.g., substance use services), gathering targeted feedback on financing strategies that are less well known, and exploring topics such as strategic planning, funding stability, and collaborative decision-making as they relate to EBT implementation and sustainment.

Long-term sustainment of evidence-based treatment (EBT) programs is essential to address behavioral health problems in youth, but the limited and fragmented funding available to behavioral health service agencies makes sustainment difficult. RAND researchers led a team that developed a strategic planning tool, called the Fiscal Mapping Process, to help youth behavioral health service agencies identify funding needs and objectives for an EBT program and develop, implement, and sustain a plan for obtaining that funding. The Fiscal Mapping Process focuses on developing two key capacities for sustaining EBT programs: funding stability and strategic planning. The tool can be used with any youth behavioral health EBT program, but it contains resources for two treatment models used in pilot testing: parent-child interaction therapy for disruptive behavior problems in youth ages 2–7 and trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for traumatic stress symptoms in youth ages 3–18. Evaluation is ongoing, but initial findings suggest that the Fiscal Mapping Process improved the strategic planning and funding stability capacities of service agencies that pilot-tested it. In addition to the tool itself, which is in the format of a Microsoft Excel workbook, the researchers created the Quick-Start Guide for the Fiscal Mapping Process, which orients users to the tool's features, provides a glossary of key terms, and answers frequently asked questions about the tool. A description of the tool's development is provided in the companion report, The Fiscal Mapping Process: Development of a Strategic Planning Tool for Sustainable Financing of Evidence-Based Treatment Programs in Youth Behavioral Health Services.

There is an increasing emphasis on the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) by public elementary school teachers, yet little is known about how teachers and other education stakeholders (e.g., administrators, policymakers) can best support the successful implementation of such practices. The authors of this report sought to understand teachers' perspectives on their readiness to implement EBPs by surveying a nationally representative panel of 1,065 public elementary school teachers. The survey, fielded from January 20, 2020, to February 24, 2020, covered three domains related to EBP adoption and implementation: (1) innovation characteristics (EBP appropriateness), (2) characteristics of individuals (openness to EBPs, burnout), and (3) inner setting characteristics (EBP implementation climate, management support). Teachers' responses suggest that they view EBPs favorably, but they do not consistently see their workloads and school environments as conducive to using EBPs. Survey findings suggest that it is essential to understand teachers' perceptions of working conditions at their schools (e.g., inner setting characteristics, burnout), because those measures showed the most variability in survey response data. Indeed, a school's ability to assess readiness for EBPs is an important first step toward cultivating the conditions for successful EBP implementation, and too often teachers are not able to give input into assessing readiness. The authors discuss the implications of survey findings for EBP implementation in elementary school settings, with a focus on how school administrators, policymakers, teachers, and other stakeholders might best understand what is needed to successfully implement EBPs, both prior to and during the implementation process.

There is an increasing emphasis on the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) by public elementary school teachers, yet little is known about how teachers and other education stakeholders (e.g., administrators, policymakers) can best support the successful implementation of such practices. The authors of this report sought to understand teachers' perspectives on their readiness to implement EBPs by surveying a nationally representative panel of 1,065 public elementary school teachers.,The survey, fielded from January 20, 2020, to February 24, 2020, covered three domains related to EBP adoption and implementation: (1) innovation characteristics (EBP appropriateness), (2) characteristics of individuals (openness to EBPs, burnout), and (3) inner setting characteristics (EBP implementation climate, management support).,Teachers' responses suggest that they view EBPs favorably, but they do not consistently see their workloads and school environments as conducive to using EBPs. Survey findings suggest that it is essential to understand teachers' perceptions of working conditions at their schools (e.g., inner setting characteristics, burnout), because those measures showed the most variability in survey response data. Indeed, a school's ability to assess readiness for EBPs is an important first step toward cultivating the conditions for successful EBP implementation, and too often teachers are not able to give input into assessing readiness.,The authors discuss the implications of survey findings for EBP implementation in elementary school settings, with a focus on how school administrators, policymakers, teachers, and other stakeholders might best understand what is needed to successfully implement EBPs, both prior to and during the implementation process.

Background Sustained delivery of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) is essential to addressing the public health and economic impacts of youth mental health problems, but is complicated by the limited and fragmented funding available to youth mental health service agencies (hereafter, "service agencies"). Strategic planning tools are needed that can guide these service agencies in their coordination of sustainable funding for EBTs. This protocol describes a mixed-methods research project designed to (1) develop and (2) evaluate our novel fiscal mapping process that guides strategic planning efforts to finance the sustainment of EBTs in youth mental health services. Method Participants will be 48 expert stakeholder participants, including representatives from ten service agencies and their partners from funding agencies (various public and private sources) and intermediary organizations (which provide guidance and support on the delivery of specific EBTs). Aim 1 is to develop the fiscal mapping process: a multi-step, structured tool that guides service agencies in selecting the optimal combination of strategies for financing their EBT sustainment efforts. We will adapt the fiscal mapping process from an established intervention mapping process and will incorporate an existing compilation of 23 financing strategies. We will then engage participants in a modified Delphi exercise to achieve consensus on the fiscal mapping process steps and gather information that can inform the selection of strategies. Aim 2 is to evaluate preliminary impacts of the fiscal mapping process on service agencies' EBT sustainment capacities (i.e., structures and processes that support sustainment) and outcomes (e.g., intentions to sustain). The ten agencies will pilot test the fiscal mapping process. We will evaluate how the fiscal mapping process impacts EBT sustainment capacities and outcomes using a comparative case study approach, incorporating data from focus groups and document review. After pilot testing, the stakeholder participants will conceptualize the process and outcomes of fiscal mapping in a participatory modeling exercise to help inform future use and evaluation of the tool. Discussion This project will generate the fiscal mapping process, which will facilitate the coordination of an array of financing strategies to sustain EBTs in community youth mental health services. This tool will promote the sustainment of youth-focused EBTs.

Background Child maltreatment is a major public issue in the United States, yet most children affected by abuse or neglect never engage in evidence-based practices (EBP) for child mental health. Children's Advocacy Centers (CACs') are uniquely situated to serve as Family Navigators who connect children impacted by maltreatment to appropriate EBPs. In fact, the CAC position of Victim Advocate mirrors the Mental Health Family Navigator national initiative. Methods The feasibility study protocol is to develop, implement, and evaluate web-based and consultative training for Victim Advocates to enhance early engagement in services (E3 training). The interactive web-based training embeds key targets of knowledge and skills related to family engagement, trauma, and EBP services. Participating CACs were randomized to E3 webinar-based training, E3 webinar plus consultation, or delayed training. The project will test the E3 training's impact on key mechanisms of change (e.g., knowledge, skills) to improve rates of screening, referral, and access to EBP services. The feasibility of implementing the training program and differential impact and costs by level of training will be examined. Discussion The overarching goal of this project is to test the feasibility of training that is readily implemented through CACs and examine the mechanisms for improving early engagement and, ultimately, child, and adolescent mental health outcomes. Results and cost findings will be used to plan a large-scale comprehensive, mixed-methods hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation and cost-effectiveness trial of family navigator E3 training. If outcomes are positive, considerable infrastructure exists to support the scale-up and sustainability of E3 training nationwide, by embedding the training in national CAC training protocols.

Child maltreatment is a major public issue in the United States, yet most children affected by abuse or neglect never engage in evidence-based practices (EBP) for child mental health. Children's Advocacy Centers (CACs') are uniquely situated to serve as Family Navigators who connect children impacted by maltreatment to appropriate EBPs. In fact, the CAC position of Victim Advocate mirrors the Mental Health Family Navigator national initiative.,The feasibility study protocol is to develop, implement, and evaluate web-based and consultative training for Victim Advocates to enhance early engagement in services (E3 training). The interactive web-based training embeds key targets of knowledge and skills related to family engagement, trauma, and EBP services. Participating CACs were randomized to E3 webinar-based training, E3 webinar plus consultation, or delayed training. The project will test the E3 training's impact on key mechanisms of change (e.g., knowledge, skills) to improve rates of screening, referral, and access to EBP services. The feasibility of implementing the training program and differential impact and costs by level of training will be examined.,The overarching goal of this project is to test the feasibility of training that is readily implemented through CACs and examine the mechanisms for improving early engagement and, ultimately, child, and adolescent mental health outcomes. Results and cost findings will be used to plan a large-scale comprehensive, mixed-methods hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation and cost-effectiveness trial of family navigator E3 training. If outcomes are positive, considerable infrastructure exists to support the scale-up and sustainability of E3 training nationwide, by embedding the training in national CAC training protocols.

Sustained delivery of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) is essential to addressing the public health and economic impacts of youth mental health problems, but is complicated by the limited and fragmented funding available to youth mental health service agencies (hereafter, "service agencies"). Strategic planning tools are needed that can guide these service agencies in their coordination of sustainable funding for EBTs. This protocol describes a mixed-methods research project designed to (1) develop and (2) evaluate our novel fiscal mapping process that guides strategic planning efforts to finance the sustainment of EBTs in youth mental health services.,Participants will be 48 expert stakeholder participants, including representatives from ten service agencies and their partners from funding agencies (various public and private sources) and intermediary organizations (which provide guidance and support on the delivery of specific EBTs). Aim 1 is to develop the fiscal mapping process: a multi-step, structured tool that guides service agencies in selecting the optimal combination of strategies for financing their EBT sustainment efforts. We will adapt the fiscal mapping process from an established intervention mapping process and will incorporate an existing compilation of 23 financing strategies. We will then engage participants in a modified Delphi exercise to achieve consensus on the fiscal mapping process steps and gather information that can inform the selection of strategies. Aim 2 is to evaluate preliminary impacts of the fiscal mapping process on service agencies' EBT sustainment capacities (i.e., structures and processes that support sustainment) and outcomes (e.g., intentions to sustain). The ten agencies will pilot test the fiscal mapping process. We will evaluate how the fiscal mapping process impacts EBT sustainment capacities and outcomes using a comparative case study approach, incorporating data from focus groups and document review. After pilot testing, the stakeholder participants will conceptualize the process and outcomes of fiscal mapping in a participatory modeling exercise to help inform future use and evaluation of the tool.,This project will generate the fiscal mapping process, which will facilitate the coordination of an array of financing strategies to sustain EBTs in community youth mental health services. This tool will promote the sustainment of youth-focused EBTs.

Background Implementation researchers are increasingly using economic evaluation to explore the benefits produced by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in healthcare settings. However, the findings of typical economic evaluations (e.g., based on clinical trials) are rarely sufficient to inform decisions about how health service organizations and policymakers should finance investments in EBPs. This paper describes how economic evaluations can be translated into policy and practice through complementary research on financing strategies that support EBP implementation and sustainment. Main body We provide an overview of EBP implementation financing, which outlines key financing and health service delivery system stakeholders and their points of decision-making. We then illustrate how economic evaluations have informed decisions about EBP implementation and sustainment with three case examples: (1) use of Pay-for-Success financing to implement multisystemic therapy in underserved areas of Colorado, USA, based in part on the strength of evidence from economic evaluations; (2) an alternative payment model to sustain evidence-based oncology care, developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through simulations of economic impact; and (3) use of a recently developed fiscal mapping process to collaboratively match financing strategies and needs during a pragmatic clinical trial for a newly adapted family support intervention for opioid use disorder. Conclusions EBP financing strategies can help overcome cost-related barriers to implementing and sustaining EBPs by translating economic evaluation results into policy and practice. We present a research agenda to advance understanding of financing strategies in five key areas raised by our case examples: (1) maximize the relevance of economic evaluations for real-world EBP implementation; (2) study ongoing changes in financing systems as part of economic evaluations; (3) identify the conditions under which a given financing strategy is most beneficial; (4) explore the use and impacts of financing strategies across pre-implementation, active implementation, and sustainment phases; and (5) advance research efforts through strong partnerships with stakeholder groups while attending to issues of power imbalance and transparency. Attention to these research areas will develop a robust body of scholarship around EBP financing strategies and, ultimately, enable greater public health impacts of EBPs.

Implementation researchers are increasingly using economic evaluation to explore the benefits produced by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in healthcare settings. However, the findings of typical economic evaluations (e.g., based on clinical trials) are rarely sufficient to inform decisions about how health service organizations and policymakers should finance investments in EBPs. This paper describes how economic evaluations can be translated into policy and practice through complementary research on financing strategies that support EBP implementation and sustainment.,We provide an overview of EBP implementation financing, which outlines key financing and health service delivery system stakeholders and their points of decision-making. We then illustrate how economic evaluations have informed decisions about EBP implementation and sustainment with three case examples: (1) use of Pay-for-Success financing to implement multisystemic therapy in underserved areas of Colorado, USA, based in part on the strength of evidence from economic evaluations; (2) an alternative payment model to sustain evidence-based oncology care, developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through simulations of economic impact; and (3) use of a recently developed fiscal mapping process to collaboratively match financing strategies and needs during a pragmatic clinical trial for a newly adapted family support intervention for opioid use disorder.,EBP financing strategies can help overcome cost-related barriers to implementing and sustaining EBPs by translating economic evaluation results into policy and practice. We present a research agenda to advance understanding of financing strategies in five key areas raised by our case examples: (1) maximize the relevance of economic evaluations for real-world EBP implementation; (2) study ongoing changes in financing systems as part of economic evaluations; (3) identify the conditions under which a given financing strategy is most beneficial; (4) explore the use and impacts of financing strategies across pre-implementation, active implementation, and sustainment phases; and (5) advance research efforts through strong partnerships with stakeholder groups while attending to issues of power imbalance and transparency. Attention to these research areas will develop a robust body of scholarship around EBP financing strategies and, ultimately, enable greater public health impacts of EBPs.

Background Little is known about clinician perspectives regarding the factors that support or hinder the long-term delivery (i.e., sustainment) of evidence-based treatments in community-based treatment settings. Methods Clinical staff from 82 community-based treatment organizations that received federal grant funding to support the delivery of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an evidence-based treatment for adolescent substance use, were asked to participate in interviews focused on understanding their perspectives about the sustainment of A-CRA. Qualitative themes were identified using inductive and deductive approaches. Then the themes were dichotomized (present/absent) so that quantitative comparisons could be made between staff from organizations that sustained and did not sustain delivery of A-CRA. Administrative data about each organization in relation to federal funding support and their primary focus was also examined to explore whether these characteristics were associated with A-CRA sustainment. Results Staff (n = 134) representing 78 organizations participated in the interviews. Staff from organizations that had received multiple federal grants to support the delivery of A-CRA and whose primary focus was substance use rather than other conditions (mental health or primary care) were more likely to report sustaining A-CRA. Staff from sustaining organizations were more likely to report positive grant experiences and success with maintaining both organizational and external support in comparison to staff from non-sustaining organizations. Staff from non-sustaining organizations were more likely to report barriers to sustaining A-CRA, including more challenges with intervention delivery, and lack of internal support and external funding. Conclusions Our findings lend empirical support for implementation theories in that multiple factors appear to be associated with long-term delivery of an evidence-based treatment. Although A-CRA was generally perceived positively by staff from both organizations that sustained A-CRA and organizations that did not sustain A-CRA, inner setting factors (e.g., structural policies, leadership support and staff retention) along with outer setting factors (e.g., external funding support) were reported as key to A-CRA sustainment.