A Scoping Review of the Influence of Evidence-Based Program Resources (EBPR) Websites for Behavioral Health.

Evidence-based program resources (EBPR) websites evaluate behavioral health programs, practices or policies (i.e., interventions) according to a predetermined set of research criteria and standards, usually resulting in a summary rating of the strength of an intervention's evidence base. This study is a mixed-methods analysis of the peer-reviewed academic literature relating to the influence of EBPRs on clinical practice and policy in the behavioral health field. Using an existing framework for a scoping review, we searched for research articles in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and ProQuest that were published between January 2002 and March 2022, referenced an EBPR or multiple EBPRs, and presented data showing the influence of one or more EBPRs on behavioral health. A total of 210 articles met the inclusion criteria and were classified into five distinct categories of influence, the most important of which was showing the direct impact of one or more EBPRs on behavioral health (8.1% of articles), defined as documenting observable changes in interventions or organizations that are at least partly due to information obtained from EBPR(s). These included impacts at the state legislative and policy-making level, at the community intervention level, provider agency level, and individual practitioner level. The majority of influences identified in the study were indirect demonstrations of how EBPRs are used in various ways. However, more studies are needed to learn about the direct impact of information from EBPRs on the behavioral health field, including impact on clinician practice and treatment outcomes for consumers.

Utilization of Evidence-based Intervention Criteria in U.S. Federal Grant Funding Announcements for Behavioral Healthcare.

Recent U.S. federal government policy has required or recommended the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), so that it is important to determine the extent to which this priority is reflected in actual federal solicitations for intervention funding, particularly for behavioral healthcare interventions. Understanding how well such policies are incorporated in federal opportunity announcements (FOAs) for grant funding could improve compliance with policy and increase the societal use of evidence-based interventions for behavioral healthcare. FOAs for discretionary grants (n = 243) in fiscal year 2021 were obtained from the Grants.gov website for 44 federal departments, agencies and sub-agencies that were likely to fund interventions in behavioral health-related areas. FOAs for block/formula grants to states that included behavioral healthcare (n = 17) were obtained from the SAM.gov website. Across both discretionary and block grants, EBIs were required in 60% and recommended in 21% of these FOAs for funding. Numerous different terms were used to signify EBIs by the FOAs, with the greatest variation occurring among the block grants. Lack of adequate elaboration or definition of alternative EBI terms prominently characterized FOAs issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, although less so for those issued by the Departments of Justice and Education. Overall, 43% of FOAs referenced evidence-based program registers on the web, which are scientifically credible sources of EBIs. Otherwise, most of the remaining elaborations of EBI terms in these FOAs were quite brief, often idiosyncratic, and not scientifically vetted. The FOAs generally adhered to federal policy requiring or encouraging the use of EBIs for funding requests. However, an overall pattern showing lack or inadequate elaboration of terms signifying EBIs makes it difficult for applicants to comply with federal policies regarding use of EBIs for behavioral healthcare.

Variations in Definitions of Evidence-Based Interventions for Behavioral Health in Eight Selected U.S. States.

BACKGROUND: U.S. state legislatures fill a vital role in supporting the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) through statutes and regulations (mandates). OBJECTIVE: The study determined the terms used by selected states to describe EBIs and how those terms are defined in mandates. RESEARCH METHODS: The mandates of eight purposely selected states were accessed and coded using the Westlaw Legal Research Database. RESULTS: Considerable variation was found in the terms used by states to describe EBIs. Although "evidence-based" was the most frequently utilized term (60% of mandates), an additional 29 alternative terms appeared with varying frequencies. Most terms were simply mentioned, with no further definition or elaboration. When terms were further defined or elaborated, the majority were defined using numerous and different types of external sources or references. Three approaches were found in the mandates defining EBIs: "single definition," "hierarchies of evidence levels," and "best available evidence"; the states differed considerably in the approaches used in their mandates. CONCLUSIONS: The variations in EBI-related terminology across states and within states, coupled with a lack of elaboration on the meaning of important terms and the predominant use of external rather than internal guidelines, may be a source of confusion for behavioral health provider agencies that seek direction about what constitutes an EBI. Prior studies indicate that many agencies may lack staff with the technical ability to adequately evaluate what constitutes an EBI. Thus, lack of clear guidance from official state government mandates may impede the implementation of EBIs within states.

References to Evidence-based Program Registry (EBPR) websites for behavioral health in U.S. state government statutes and regulations.

Background and aim: U.S. state governments have the responsibility to regulate and license behavioral healthcare interventions, such as for addiction and mental illness, with increasing emphasis on implementing evidence-based programs (EBPs). A serious obstacle to this is lack of clarity or agreement about what constitutes "evidence-based." The study's purpose was to determine the extent to which and in what contexts web-based Evidence-based Program Registries (EBPRs) are referenced in state government statutes and regulations ("mandates") concerning behavioral healthcare. Examples are: What Works Clearinghouse; National Register of Evidence-based Programs and Practices; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Methods: The study employed the Westlaw Legal Research Database to search for 30 known EBPR websites relevant to behavioral healthcare within the statutes and regulations of all 50 states. Results: There was low prevalence of EBPR references in state statutes and regulations pertaining to behavioral healthcare; 20 states had a total of 33 mandates that referenced an EBPR. These mandates usually do not rely on an EBPR as the sole acceptable source for classifying a program or practice as "evidence-based." Instead, EBPRs were named in conjunction with internal state or external sources of information about putative program effectiveness, which may be less valid than EBPRs, to determine what is "evidence-based." Conclusion: Greater awareness of scientifically - based EBPRs and greater understanding of their advantages need to be fostered among state legislators and regulators charged with making policy to increase or improve the use of evidence-based programs and practices in behavioral healthcare in the U.S.

State behavioral health agency website references to evidence-based program registers.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based program registers (EBPRs) are important tools for facilitating the use of evidence-based practices or programs (EBPs) by state statutory agencies responsible for behavioral healthcare, broadly defined as substance misuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS prevention, child welfare, and offender rehabilitation. There are currently no data on the purposes for which such state agencies reference EBPRs on their official websites. METHOD: A webscraping method was used to identify and classify relevant "hits", defined as a state behavioral health webpage with single or multiple references to a study EBPR. A total of 778 hits (unique combinations of webpage and register) were coded. Up to three codes were applied to each hit for the "reasons for the EBPR reference" (EBPR use) dimension, one code was applied to each hit for the "purpose of the EBPR reference" and "intended audience of the webpage containing the hit" dimensions, and up to two codes were applied to each hit for the "funding mentions" dimension. RESULTS: Three EBPRs out of 28 accounted for 73.6% of the hits. The most frequent reason for referencing EBPRs were as a resource for selecting EBPs or validating existing programs and practices. The references tended to appear in reports from the state, in training materials, or guidelines. The references tended to address broad groups of behavioral healthcare professionals. EBPRs were frequently referenced in the context of federal block grants or other federal funding. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing state agencies' awareness and use of the entire range of existing EBPRs may improve implementation of EBPs nationally.

Crack cocaine and sex.

The impact of crack cocaine use on number of sex partners was examined using bivariate analyses and a logistic model on a national treatment cohort of 4939 individuals. Number of sex partners over the last 12 months was dichotomized as none/one versus multiple partners for the logistic analyses. The model included 11 independent variables not including prostitution or use of crack cocaine. For both genders, the bivariate analyses showed significant positive associations between crack use and number of partners regardless of type of sexual activity; those who used crack had more partners for all sexual activities queried, compared to those who did not. Cocaine, whether in powder or crack form, was positively associated with prostitution for both genders. For men the odds ratio for crack cocaine use ranged from 1.6 (heterosexual anal) to 5.5 (homosexual anal) and for women from 2.9 (heterosexual oral) to 4.1 (homosexual oral). If prostitution is added to the model the odds ratios are reduced for homosexual activities for men and reduced dramatically for all types of sexual activity for women.

Response to a patient activation intervention among Spanish-speaking patients at a community health center in New York City.

Patient activation describes an individual's readiness to participate in their health care. Lower levels of activation that may contribute to poor health outcomes have been documented in Latino patients. We administered a brief activating intervention directed at Spanish-speakers that sought to improve and encourage question-asking during a medical visit. We used quantitative measures of patient attitudes supplemented with open-ended questions to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention at a community health center. Post-intervention changes in the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) and Decision Self-Efficacy (DSE) were measured. Both control and intervention group PAM scores changed significantly, but for those at lower levels of activation, only the intervention group showed significant gains. For the DSE the intervention group showed significant changes in scores. These findings, which are supported by the qualitative data, suggest that the intervention helped patients who may have difficulty asking questions during medical visits.

The impact of different modalities for activating patients in a community health center setting.

OBJECTIVE: Decision aids are designed to assist patients in understanding their health care choices but lower SES populations are less activated and may not be prepared to benefit. Activating interventions may help prepare patients for using decision aids. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of a decision aid video (DA) and the Patient Activation Intervention (PAI) on patient's level of activation measured by the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) and their decision-making confidence measured by the decision self-efficacy (DSE) scale. Patients were randomized into control, PAI alone, DA alone, and DA+PAI groups. RESULTS: PAM and DSE scores increased significantly in all groups with repeated measures. Restricting analyses to those with pre-intervention PAM scores at stages 1 or 2, the change in PAM scores was significant only for the intervention groups. The change in DSE scores was significantly only in the DA group. CONCLUSION: These findings provide support for the utility of the DA, the PAI, and the DA+PAI in activating lower SES individuals. The DA alone changed DSE scores in the least activated patients while the PAI and DA both changed PAM scores. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interventions directed at increasing patient engagement in their care may be useful particularly for less activated patients from lower SES populations.