Antibullying Interventions in Schools: Assessing the Evidence Base.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review used established rating criteria to describe the level of evidence for interventions aimed at preventing or reducing bullying perpetration and victimization in schools, synthesized the evidence for students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and reviewed the literature for available information to conduct an economic analysis of the interventions. METHODS: Major databases, gray literature, and evidence-base registries were searched to identify studies published from 2008 through 2022. The authors rated antibullying intervention models as having high, moderate, or low evidence depending on the number and rigor of studies with positive findings. RESULTS: Overall, 80 articles reporting on 71 original research studies describing a total of 48 antibullying interventions met the inclusion criteria for this review. Two schoolwide interventions received a high-evidence rating: the KiVa (Kiusaamista Vastaan) Antibullying Program and the Friendly Schools program. Multilevel interventions with components at the levels of school, classroom, and individual student most consistently showed strong evidence for reducing bullying behavior in elementary and middle school grades. Four interventions yielded positive effects in reducing bullying and victimization among diverse samples of students. CONCLUSIONS: Antibullying interventions can reduce bullying in schools. Some interventions show effectiveness with students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds. The gains relative to per-student costs were in the range that is considered cost-effective. Most implementation costs are spent on staff training and support. Research on successful implementation of whole-school interventions and additional synthesis of evidence pertaining to program structures would further advance the antibullying evidence base.

Assessing the Evidence Base for School-Based Promotion and Prevention Interventions: Introduction to the Series.

Schools are an important component in the mental health system of care for youths. Teachers and other school staff have unique opportunities to promote emotional wellness and prevent mental health conditions. Although numerous programs are available, identifying evidence-based and effective options is a significant challenge. This introduction lays out the rationale and methodology of the Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) Series, a collection of systematic reviews of school-based mental health promotion and prevention approaches recommended by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for students in kindergarten through grade 12. Authors of the current AEB Series used the rating criteria derived from the 2014 AEB Series, which provided systematic reviews of a wide spectrum of interventions for mental and substance use disorders. Like its predecessor, the current series upholds a high standard of scientific rigor while ensuring that the information is easily accessible to various stakeholders in education, behavioral health, and communities. It describes the universal features included in each systematic review, such as a rating of the level of evidence for interventions, intervention program components, identification of interventions that have yielded positive outcomes for students from underserved populations, and a review of cost data. The AEB systematic reviews will serve as an important tool for decision makers involved in managing limited resources for various programs in school-based mental health services by synthesizing large bodies of research for use by leaders in education and behavioral health.

Reducing Disruptive and Distracting Behaviors in the Classroom: Assessing the Evidence Base.

OBJECTIVE: Disruptive and distracting behaviors in the classroom, from off-task to aggressive behaviors, negatively affect academic engagement and achievement and can lead to more serious problems, including mental health conditions and substance use disorders. The goals of this systematic review were to assess the level of evidence, using established rating criteria, for interventions aimed at preventing or reducing disruptive and distracting classroom behaviors; identify program components common to multiple interventions; synthesize the evidence in regard to students from different racial-ethnic groups; and conduct an economic analysis of these interventions. METHODS: A search of major databases, gray literature, and evidence base registries was conducted to identify studies published between 2008 and 2022. The authors rated interventions as having high, moderate, or low levels of evidence of effectiveness on the basis of the number and rigor of studies with positive outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 27 interventions identified across 65 studies (N=73 articles), six interventions received a high or moderate evidence rating. The Good Behavior Game was the most frequently studied intervention. Many interventions shared similar program components, including behavioral management, classroom management, emotional-cognitive processes, and skills acquisition. Most articles (86%) were focused on elementary school students. The four interventions rated as having high evidence of effectiveness also showed generally positive outcomes in studies conducted in school settings with racial-ethnic diversity. No studies met the criteria for inclusion in an economic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: With greater use and more research, interventions focusing on reducing disruptive and distracting behaviors have the potential to promote student well-being and prevent mental health conditions.

Community- and Program-Level Predictors of Funding Streams Used by Coordinated Specialty Care Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Although coordinated specialty care (CSC) is an effective service model to address first-episode psychosis, CSC is not widely accessible in the United States, and funding for this service model often remains challenging. The authors examined whether community- or program-level factors predict the use of public and private funding streams in a national sample of 34 CSC programs in 22 U.S. states and territories. METHODS: As part of a larger mixed-methods study, CSC program leaders completed a brief questionnaire regarding funding sources. Statistical modeling was used to examine program- and community-level predictors of the use of funding sources. RESULTS: Most CSC programs (20 of 34, 59%) reported that Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) set-aside funds accounted for more than half of their total funding, and 11 of these programs reported that these funds contributed to >75% of their funding. Programs ≤5 years old were more likely to rely on MHBG set-aside funds. Programs in Medicaid expansion states were more likely to rely on Medicaid funding than programs in nonexpansion states. Programs in higher-income service catchment areas used more state funds than did those in lower-income areas, and among programs in lower-income service catchment areas, those that were >4 years old were more likely than those ≤4 years old to rely on state funds other than Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: CSC programs remain largely dependent on MHBG set-aside funding. Some programs have diversified their funding streams, most notably by including more Medicaid and other state funding. A more comprehensive funding approach is needed to reduce reliance on the MHBG set-aside funds.

State Mental Health Authority Level of Involvement in Coordinated Specialty Care Clinics and Client Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: State mental health authorities (SMHAs) in all U.S. states and territories administer the Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) set-aside funding for first-episode psychosis. Funds support implementation of coordinated specialty care (CSC) programs. The authors investigated the relationship between the level of SMHA involvement with CSC programs and clinical outcomes of clients in these programs. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods study of 34 CSC programs, SMHAs from 21 states and one U.S. territory associated with the 34 CSC programs participated in a 1-hour interview (between November 2018 and May 2019) focused on SMHA involvement in administration of MHBG set-aside funds and the SMHA's ongoing relationship with funded CSC programs. SMHA involvement was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the highest involvement. Client outcome data were collected at the 34 study sites over an 18-month period. Multilevel random-effect modeling was used, controlling for response propensity (propensity score), client demographic variables, and program-level covariates (i.e., fidelity score, staff turnover rates, service area urbanicity, and number of clients enrolled). RESULTS: Clients in CSC programs with SMHAs that were the most involved (level 5) had significantly improved symptoms, social functioning, and role functioning, compared with clients in programs with which SMHAs were least involved (level 1). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that increased SMHA involvement in CSC programs is relevant for positive client outcomes. Levels of first-episode psychosis funding doubled in 2021 and 2022, and it is important to identify how SMHAs affect the success of CSC programs and the individuals served.

Growth of Coordinated Specialty Care in the United States With Changes in Federal Funding Policies: 2014-2018.

OBJECTIVE: In 2014, the number of coordinated specialty care (CSC) programs in the United States greatly expanded. The proliferation of CSC programs was likely due in part to the availability of Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) set-aside funds for treatment of first-episode psychosis. This study aimed to explore the characteristics of CSC programs across 44 states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories that received funding through the MHBG set-aside program in 2018. METHODS: Leadership at 88% (N=215) of the 244 MHBG-funded CSC programs identified through state mental health authorities participated in an online survey. RESULTS: Overall, 69% of the CSC programs were initiated after 2014. More than 90% of programs included services that were consistent with federal guidance. CSC programs showed variability in training received, program size, and enrollment criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study emphasize that clear federal guidance can help shape national CSC implementation efforts, although decisions at the state and local levels can influence how implementation occurs. The strategy of states administering federal funds for CSC may be adapted for the rollout of other behavioral health interventions. Future studies could investigate factors that may shape national dissemination efforts, such as leadership within the state, funding, availability of programs established before the influx of funding, and considerations about sustainability after the funding is no longer available.

Screening for Behavioral Health Conditions in Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence indicates that early recognition and treatment of behavioral health disorders can prevent complications, improve quality of life, and help reduce health care costs. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify and evaluate publicly available, psychometrically tested tools that primary care physicians (PCPs) can use to screen adult patients for common mental and substance use disorders such as depression, anxiety, and alcohol use disorders. METHODS: We followed the Institute of Medicine (IOM) systematic review guidelines and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments databases to identify literature addressing tools for screening of behavioral health conditions. We gathered information on each tool's psychometrics, applicability in primary care, and characteristics such as number of items and mode of administration. We included tools focused on adults and the most common behavioral health conditions; we excluded tools designed for children, youth, or older adults; holistic health scales; and tools screening for serious but less frequently encountered disorders, such as bipolar disorder. RESULTS: We identified 24 screening tools that met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen tools were subscales stemming from multiple-disorder assessments or tools that assessed more than one mental disorder or more than one substance use disorder in a single instrument. Nine were ultra-short, single-disorder tools. The tools varied in psychometrics and the extent to which they had been administered and studied in primary care settings. DISCUSSION: Tools stemming from the Patient Health Questionnaire had the most testing and application in primary care settings. However, numerous other tools could meet the needs of primary care practices. This review provides information that PCPs can use to select appropriate tools to incorporate into a screening protocol.

"Big Eight" Recommendations for Improving the Effectiveness of the U.S. Behavioral Health Care System.

The purpose of this Open Forum is to highlight strategies that can be implemented by federal health care policy makers to improve the delivery of effective behavioral health care services in the public and private sectors. The recommendations can be accomplished by using existing funds or authorities allocated to federal agencies dealing with the behavioral health system. These recommendations do not require new or additional funding and focus on strategies with a track record for success. The strategies described require relatively small changes but have the potential for big impacts.

Peer recovery support for individuals with substance use disorders: assessing the evidence.

In recent years, peer recovery support services have become an accepted part of the treatment of substance use disorders, providing a more extensive array of services than typically associated with mutual support groups. Peer providers may help consumers set recovery goals, develop a plan, and work toward and maintain recovery. In this literature review, the last in the Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) Series, the authors review the evidence supporting peer recovery support services, noting that more research is needed to distinguish the effects of peer recovery support from other recovery support activities.

Skill building: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Skill building for adults involves multiple approaches to address the complex problems related to serious mental illness. Individuals with schizophrenia are often the research focus. The authors outline key skill-building approaches and describe their evidence base. METHODS: Authors searched meta-analyses, research reviews, and individual studies from 1995 through March 2013. Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, ERIC, and CINAHL. Authors chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) on the basis of benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: Over 100 randomized controlled trials and numerous quasi-experimental studies support rating the level of evidence as high. Outcomes indicate strong effectiveness for social skills training, social cognitive training, and cognitive remediation, especially if these interventions are delivered through integrated approaches, such as Integrated Psychological Therapy. Results are somewhat mixed for life skills training (when studied alone) and cognitive-behavioral approaches. The complexities of schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses call for individually tailored, multimodal skill-building approaches in combination with other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Skill building should be a foundation for rehabilitation services covered by comprehensive benefit plans that attend to the need for service packages with multiple components delivered in various combinations. Further research should demonstrate more conclusively the long-term effectiveness of skill building in real-life situations, alone and in various treatment combinations. Studies of diverse subpopulations are also needed.

Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy for children and adolescents: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) is a conjoint parent-child treatment developed by Cohen, Mannarino, and Deblinger that uses cognitive-behavioral principles and exposure techniques to prevent and treat posttraumatic stress, depression, and behavioral problems. This review defined TF-CBT, differentiated it from other models, and assessed the evidence base. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, reviews, and individual studies (1995 to 2013). Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, PILOTS, the ERIC, and the CINAHL. They chose from three levels of research evidence (high, moderate, and low) on the basis of benchmarks for number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of effectiveness. RESULTS: The level of evidence for TF-CBT was rated as high on the basis of ten RCTs, three of which were conducted independently (not by TF-CBT developers). TF-CBT has demonstrated positive outcomes in reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, although it is less clear whether TF-CBT is effective in reducing behavior problems or symptoms of depression. Limitations of the studies include concerns about investigator bias and exclusion of vulnerable populations. CONCLUSIONS: TF-CBT is a viable treatment for reducing trauma-related symptoms among some children who have experienced trauma and their nonoffending caregivers. Based on this evidence, TF-CBT should be available as a covered service in health plans. Ongoing research is needed to further identify best practices for TF-CBT in various settings and with individuals from various racial and ethnic backgrounds and with varied trauma histories, symptoms, and stages of intellectual, social, and emotional development.

Peer support services for individuals with serious mental illnesses: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: This review assessed the level of evidence and effectiveness of peer support services delivered by individuals in recovery to those with serious mental illnesses or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. METHODS: Authors searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for outcome studies of peer support services from 1995 through 2012. They found 20 studies across three service types: peers added to traditional services, peers in existing clinical roles, and peers delivering structured curricula. Authors judged the methodological quality of the studies using three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low). They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: The level of evidence for each type of peer support service was moderate. Many studies had methodological shortcomings, and outcome measures varied. The effectiveness varied by service type. Across the range of methodological rigor, a majority of studies of two service types--peers added and peers delivering curricula--showed some improvement favoring peers. Compared with professional staff, peers were better able to reduce inpatient use and improve a range of recovery outcomes, although one study found a negative impact. Effectiveness of peers in existing clinical roles was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support services have demonstrated many notable outcomes. However, studies that better differentiate the contributions of the peer role and are conducted with greater specificity, consistency, and rigor would strengthen the evidence.

Consumer and family psychoeducation: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Psychoeducation provides adult consumers who have serious mental illness or co-occurring substance use disorders with information to support recovery. Some models also provide this service to family members. This review examined the evidence base for psychoeducation models in group and individual formats. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, research reviews, and individual studies from 1995 through 2012. Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Authors chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) on the basis of benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described service effectiveness. RESULTS: More than 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of consumer psychoeducation and more than 100 RCTs of family psychoeducation provide a high level of evidence for the effectiveness of each model. Reviews of consumer psychoeducation found that experimental groups had reduced nonadherence (primarily with medication regimens), fewer relapses, and reduced hospitalization rates compared with control groups. Some studies found significant improvements in social and global functioning, consumer satisfaction, and quality of life. Multifamily psychoeducation groups (the focus of numerous studies) were associated with significantly improved problem-solving ability and a reduced burden on families, compared with control groups, among other strong outcome effects. CONCLUSIONS: Psychoeducation should be included in covered services. Group and family interventions are especially powerful. Future research should assess psychoeducation models with children and adolescents and with individuals from various racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Residential treatment for individuals with substance use disorders: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Residential treatment is a commonly used direct intervention for individuals with substance use or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders who need structured care. Treatment occurs in nonhospital, licensed residential facilities. Models vary, but all provide safe housing and medical care in a 24-hour recovery environment. This article describes residential treatment and assesses the evidence base for this service. METHODS: Authors evaluated research reviews and individual studies from 1995 through 2012. They searched major databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts. They chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) and described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: On the basis of eight reviews and 21 individual studies not included in prior reviews, the level of evidence for residential treatment for substance use disorders was rated as moderate. A number of randomized controlled trials were identified, but various methodological weaknesses in study designs-primarily the appropriateness of the samples and equivalence of comparison groups-decreased the level of evidence. Results for the effectiveness of residential treatment compared with other types of treatment for substance use disorders were mixed. Findings suggested either an improvement or no difference in treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Residential treatment for substance use disorders shows value and merits ongoing consideration by policy makers for inclusion as a covered benefit in public and commercially funded plans. However, research with greater specificity and consistency is needed.

Substance abuse intensive outpatient programs: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Substance abuse intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) are direct services for people with substance use disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders who do not require medical detoxification or 24-hour supervision. IOPs are alternatives to inpatient and residential treatment. They are designed to establish psychosocial supports and facilitate relapse management and coping strategies. This review assessed the evidence base for IOPs. METHODS: Authors searched major databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, ERIC, and CINAHL. They identified 12 individual studies and one review published between 1995 and 2012. They chose from three levels of research evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: Based on the quality of trials, diversity of settings, and consistency of outcomes, the level of evidence for IOPs was rated high. Multiple randomized trials and naturalistic analyses that compared IOPs with inpatient or residential care found comparable outcomes. All studies reported reductions in alcohol and drug use. However, substantial variability in the operationalization of IOPs and outcome measures was apparent. CONCLUSIONS: IOPs are an important part of the continuum of care for substance use disorders. They are as effective as inpatient treatment for most individuals. Public and commercial health plans should consider IOP services as a covered health benefit. Standardization of the elements included in IOPs may improve their quality and effectiveness.

Medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) are pharmacological treatment programs for individuals with opioid use disorders. MMT is discussed in a companion article. This article describes BMT and reviews available research on its efficacy. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and individual studies of BMT from 1995 through 2012. Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress. They chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: Sixteen adequately designed randomized controlled trials of BMT indicated a high level of evidence for its positive impact on treatment retention and illicit opioid use. Seven reviews or meta-analyses were also included. When the medication was dosed adequately, BMT and MMT showed similar reduction in illicit opioid use, but BMT was associated with less risk of adverse events. Results suggested better treatment retention with MMT. BMT was associated with improved maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnancy, compared with no medication-assisted treatment. Rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome were similar for mothers treated with BMT and MMT during pregnancy, but symptoms were less severe for infants whose mothers were treated with BMT. CONCLUSIONS: BMT is associated with improved outcomes compared with placebo for individuals and pregnant women with opioid use disorders. BMT should be considered for inclusion as a covered benefit.

Supported employment: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Supported employment is a direct service with multiple components designed to help adults with mental disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders choose, acquire, and maintain competitive employment. This article describes supported employment and assesses the evidence base for this service. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, research reviews, and individual studies from 1995 through 2012. Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Authors chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence for service effectiveness. RESULTS: The level of research evidence for supported employment was graded as high, based on 12 systematic reviews and 17 randomized controlled trials of the individual placement and support model. Supported employment consistently demonstrated positive outcomes for individuals with mental disorders, including higher rates of competitive employment, fewer days to the first competitive job, more hours and weeks worked, and higher wages. There was also strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of individual elements of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of supported employment. Policy makers should consider including it as a covered service. Future research is needed for subgroups such as young adults, older adults, people with primary substance use disorders, and those from various cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds.

Medication-assisted treatment with methadone: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Detoxification followed by abstinence has shown little success in reducing illicit opioid use. Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) helps individuals with an opioid use disorder abstain from or decrease use of illegal or nonmedical opiates. This review examined evidence for MMT's effectiveness. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and individual studies of MMT from 1995 through 2012. Databases searched were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress. The authors rated the level of evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness and examined maternal and fetal results of MMT for pregnant women. RESULTS: The review included seven randomized controlled trials and two quasi-experimental studies of MMT, indicating a high level of evidence for the positive impact of MMT on treatment retention and illicit opioid use, particularly at doses greater than 60 mg. Evidence suggests positive impacts on drug-related HIV risk behaviors, mortality, and criminality. Meta-analyses were difficult to perform or yielded nonsignificant results. Studies found little association between MMT and sex-related HIV risk behaviors. MMT in pregnancy was associated with improved maternal and fetal outcomes, and rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome were similar for mothers receiving different doses. Reports of adverse events were also found. CONCLUSIONS: MMT is associated with improved outcomes for individuals and pregnant women with opioid use disorders. MMT should be a covered service available to all individuals.

Behavioral management for children and adolescents: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Behavioral management services for children and adolescents are important components of the mental health service system. Behavioral management is a direct service designed to help develop or maintain prosocial behaviors in the home, school, or community. This review examined evidence for the effectiveness of family-centered, school-based, and integrated interventions. METHODS: Literature reviews and individual studies published from 1995 through 2012 were identified by searching PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Authors chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: The level of evidence for behavioral management was rated as high because of the number of well-designed randomized controlled trials across settings, particularly for family-centered and integrated family- and school-based interventions. Results for the effectiveness of behavioral management interventions were strong, depending on the type of intervention and mode of implementation. Evidence for school-based interventions as an isolated service was mixed, partly because complexities of evaluating group interventions in schools resulted in somewhat less rigor. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral management services should be considered for inclusion in covered plans. Further research addressing the mechanisms of effect and specific populations, particularly at the school level, will assist in bolstering the evidence base for this important category of clinical intervention.

Permanent supportive housing: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Permanent supportive housing provides safe, stable housing for people with mental and substance use disorders who are homeless or disabled. This article describes permanent supportive housing and reviews research. METHODS: Authors reviewed individual studies and literature reviews from 1995 through 2012. Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The authors chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) on the basis of benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: The level of evidence for permanent supportive housing was graded as moderate. Substantial literature, including seven randomized controlled trials, demonstrated that components of the model reduced homelessness, increased housing tenure, and decreased emergency room visits and hospitalization. Consumers consistently rated this model more positively than other housing models. Methodological flaws limited the ability to draw firm conclusions. Results were stronger for studies that compared permanent supportive housing with treatment as usual or no housing rather than with other models. CONCLUSIONS: The moderate level of evidence indicates that permanent supportive housing is promising, but research is needed to clarify the model and determine the most effective elements for various subpopulations. Policy makers should consider including permanent supportive housing as a covered service for individuals with mental and substance use disorders. An evaluation component is needed to continue building its evidence base.