Mental Health Provider Reach and Engagement in a Countywide Training Initiative

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Brigid R. Marriott, Jack H. Andrews, Evelyn Cho, Siena K. Tugendrajch, Kristin M. Hawley
{"title":"Mental Health Provider Reach and Engagement in a Countywide Training Initiative","authors":"Brigid R. Marriott,&nbsp;Jack H. Andrews,&nbsp;Evelyn Cho,&nbsp;Siena K. Tugendrajch,&nbsp;Kristin M. Hawley","doi":"10.1007/s10488-024-01345-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Many training initiatives are underway to increase implementation of evidence-based practice (EBPs) in mental healthcare. However, little is known about what types of trainings and supports yield the highest reach and engagement. Supported by a tax-funded, countywide initiative to improve access to quality care for youths, the current mixed methods study evaluates mental health (MH) provider reach, or registering for the training initiative, and engagement, or participation in training activities, for several EBP training and implementation supports. MH providers were offered free 1) formal EBP workshops, 2) a biweekly learning community, 3) individual case consultation, and 4) confidential online clinical feedback system. To register, interested providers (<i>N</i> = 698) completed a web-based assessment measuring clinical practice information, organizational implementation climate, and EBP knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Thirteen providers, selected via purposeful sampling stratified by level of participation, completed semi-structured qualitative interviews. While the training initiative achieved high reach (66% of county agencies had a provider register), far fewer providers engaged substantially in training. Quantitative results indicated that providers whose professional discipline was not psychology, had higher baseline EBP knowledge, more extensive use of common evidence-based strategies, and less extensive use of other therapy strategies, engaged in more training. Rapid qualitative analysis of interviews expanded upon these findings and illuminated provider, organizational, system, practical, and training activity-specific barriers and facilitators to engagement. Findings suggest the importance of identifying strategies for improving provider engagement in training activities beyond workshops. Implications for future research and training initiatives are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-024-01345-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many training initiatives are underway to increase implementation of evidence-based practice (EBPs) in mental healthcare. However, little is known about what types of trainings and supports yield the highest reach and engagement. Supported by a tax-funded, countywide initiative to improve access to quality care for youths, the current mixed methods study evaluates mental health (MH) provider reach, or registering for the training initiative, and engagement, or participation in training activities, for several EBP training and implementation supports. MH providers were offered free 1) formal EBP workshops, 2) a biweekly learning community, 3) individual case consultation, and 4) confidential online clinical feedback system. To register, interested providers (N = 698) completed a web-based assessment measuring clinical practice information, organizational implementation climate, and EBP knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Thirteen providers, selected via purposeful sampling stratified by level of participation, completed semi-structured qualitative interviews. While the training initiative achieved high reach (66% of county agencies had a provider register), far fewer providers engaged substantially in training. Quantitative results indicated that providers whose professional discipline was not psychology, had higher baseline EBP knowledge, more extensive use of common evidence-based strategies, and less extensive use of other therapy strategies, engaged in more training. Rapid qualitative analysis of interviews expanded upon these findings and illuminated provider, organizational, system, practical, and training activity-specific barriers and facilitators to engagement. Findings suggest the importance of identifying strategies for improving provider engagement in training activities beyond workshops. Implications for future research and training initiatives are discussed.

心理健康服务提供者在全县培训计划中的覆盖面和参与度。
目前正在开展许多培训活动,以提高循证实践(EBPs)在心理保健中的实施率。然而,人们对哪种类型的培训和支持能产生最大的覆盖面和参与度知之甚少。在一项由税收资助的、旨在改善青少年获得优质医疗服务的全县性倡议的支持下,本项混合方法研究对心理健康(MH)服务提供者对几种 EBP 培训和实施支持的覆盖面(或培训倡议的注册情况)和参与度(或培训活动的参与情况)进行了评估。心理健康服务提供者可免费参加 1) 正式的 EBP 研讨班;2) 每两周一次的学习社区;3) 个别案例咨询;4) 保密的在线临床反馈系统。注册时,感兴趣的医疗服务提供者(N = 698)需完成一项基于网络的评估,评估内容包括临床实践信息、组织实施氛围以及 EBP 知识、态度和实践。根据参与程度进行有目的的分层抽样,选出了 13 名医疗服务提供者,他们完成了半结构化定性访谈。虽然培训计划的覆盖率很高(66% 的县级机构都有医疗服务提供者登记册),但真正参与培训的医疗服务提供者却少得多。定量结果表明,专业学科不是心理学、EBP 基础知识较高、常用循证策略使用较多、其他治疗策略使用较少的服务提供者参与了更多培训。对访谈的快速定性分析扩展了这些发现,并揭示了服务提供者、组织、系统、实践和培训活动参与的具体障碍和促进因素。研究结果表明,除研讨会外,确定提高服务提供者参与培训活动的策略也非常重要。本文还讨论了未来研究和培训计划的意义。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信