美国8个选定州的基于证据的行为卫生干预任务的特点。

IF 1.5 4区社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY

Evaluation and Program Planning Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102536

Archer Lee-Easton, Michael Maranda, Stephen Magura

{"title":"美国8个选定州的基于证据的行为卫生干预任务的特点。","authors":"Archer Lee-Easton, Michael Maranda, Stephen Magura","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Demand for the use of evidence-based interventions (EBI) to address behavioral health issues remains high in the United States. States are primarily tasked with determining what constitutes EBIs on a state-by-state basis. This results in variations in what constitutes an EBI across states. The study’s purpose is to determine the different ways in which state mandates for EBIs operationalize the concept of EBI, including the different levels of evidence that are required. The EBI mandates of 8 states were purposively selected for this study based on their Pew Charitable Trusts rating of EBI implementation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>64 % of EBI operationalizations included a quality of evidence requirement and 74 % included an impact reporting requirement. 52 % included both types of requirements, 35 % featured one type of requirement or the other, and 14 % included neither type of requirement. There was variation in the content of those requirements depending on the implied tier of evidence and the state’s PMC rating category.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>States need consistent operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI if they are to support the implementation of effective programming for behavioral health care. Additionally, states should produce more rigorous research-based operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 102536"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics of mandates for evidence-based behavioral health interventions in 8 selected US states\",\"authors\":\"Archer Lee-Easton, Michael Maranda, Stephen Magura\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Demand for the use of evidence-based interventions (EBI) to address behavioral health issues remains high in the United States. States are primarily tasked with determining what constitutes EBIs on a state-by-state basis. This results in variations in what constitutes an EBI across states. The study’s purpose is to determine the different ways in which state mandates for EBIs operationalize the concept of EBI, including the different levels of evidence that are required. The EBI mandates of 8 states were purposively selected for this study based on their Pew Charitable Trusts rating of EBI implementation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>64 % of EBI operationalizations included a quality of evidence requirement and 74 % included an impact reporting requirement. 52 % included both types of requirements, 35 % featured one type of requirement or the other, and 14 % included neither type of requirement. There was variation in the content of those requirements depending on the implied tier of evidence and the state’s PMC rating category.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>States need consistent operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI if they are to support the implementation of effective programming for behavioral health care. Additionally, states should produce more rigorous research-based operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"volume\":\"109 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102536\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation and Program Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718925000035\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718925000035","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的：在美国，使用基于证据的干预措施（EBI）来解决行为健康问题的需求仍然很高。各州的主要任务是在各州的基础上确定什么构成环境污染指数。这导致各州之间构成EBI的内容存在差异。本研究的目的是确定各州对EBI的授权如何运用EBI概念的不同方式，包括所需证据的不同水平。根据皮尤慈善信托对EBI实施的评级，有目的地选择了8个州的EBI授权进行本研究。结果：64% %的EBI实施包括证据质量要求，74% %包括影响报告要求。52% %包括两种需求，35% %包括一种或另一种需求，14% %不包括任何一种需求。这些要求的内容根据隐含的证据层次和州的PMC评级类别而有所不同。结论：各国如果要支持实施有效的行为保健方案拟订工作，就需要始终如一地实施构成EBI的内容。此外，各州应该对构成EBI的内容进行更严格的基于研究的操作。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Characteristics of mandates for evidence-based behavioral health interventions in 8 selected US states

Purpose

Demand for the use of evidence-based interventions (EBI) to address behavioral health issues remains high in the United States. States are primarily tasked with determining what constitutes EBIs on a state-by-state basis. This results in variations in what constitutes an EBI across states. The study’s purpose is to determine the different ways in which state mandates for EBIs operationalize the concept of EBI, including the different levels of evidence that are required. The EBI mandates of 8 states were purposively selected for this study based on their Pew Charitable Trusts rating of EBI implementation.

Results

64 % of EBI operationalizations included a quality of evidence requirement and 74 % included an impact reporting requirement. 52 % included both types of requirements, 35 % featured one type of requirement or the other, and 14 % included neither type of requirement. There was variation in the content of those requirements depending on the implied tier of evidence and the state’s PMC rating category.

Conclusions

States need consistent operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI if they are to support the implementation of effective programming for behavioral health care. Additionally, states should produce more rigorous research-based operationalizations of what constitutes an EBI.

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

Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

6.20%

发文量

112

期刊介绍： Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.