Effectiveness of training methods for delivery of evidence-based psychotherapies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Extensive efforts have been made to train mental health providers in evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs); there is increasing attention focused on the methods through which providers are trained to deliver EBPs. Evaluating EBP training methods is an important step in determining which methods are most effective in increasing provider skill and improving client outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through June 2019 that evaluated EBP training methods to determine the effectiveness of EBP training modalities on implementation (provider and cost) and client outcomes. Eligible studies (N = 28) were evaluated for risk of bias, and the overall strength of evidence was assessed for each outcome. Data was extracted by a single investigator and confirmed by a second; risk of bias and strength of evidence were independently rated by two investigators and determined by consensus. RESULTS: Overall, EBP training improved short-term provider satisfaction, EBP knowledge, and adherence compared to no training or self-study of training materials (low to moderate strength of evidence). Training in an EBP did not increase treatment adoption compared to no training or self-study. No specific active EBP training modality was found to consistently increase provider EBP knowledge, skill acquisition/adherence, competence, adoption, or satisfaction compared to another active training modality. Findings were mixed regarding the additive benefit of post-training consultation on these outcomes. No studies evaluated changes in provider outcomes with regards to training costs and few studies reported on client outcomes. LIMITATIONS: The majority of included studies had a moderate risk of bias and strength of evidence for the outcomes of interest was generally low or insufficient. Few studies reported effect sizes. The ability to identify the most effective EBP training methods was limited by low strength of evidence for the outcomes of interest and substantial heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSIONS: EBP training may have increased short-term provider satisfaction, EBP knowledge, and adherence though not adoption. Evidence was insufficient on training costs and client outcomes. Future research is needed on EBP training methods, implementation, sustainability, client outcomes, and costs to ensure efforts to train providers in EBPs are effective, efficient, and durable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018093381).

Evidence Review-Social Determinants of Health for Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is committed to providing high-quality care and addressing health disparities for vulnerable Veterans. To meet these goals, VA policymakers need guidance on how to address social determinants in operations planning and day-to-day clinical care for Veterans. METHOD: MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from inception to January 2017. Additional articles were suggested by peer reviewers and/or found through search of work associated with US and VA cohorts. Eligible articles compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and/or Veterans engaged with those not engaged in VA healthcare. Our evidence maps summarized study characteristics, social determinant(s) addressed, and whether health behaviors, health services utilization, and/or health outcomes were examined. Qualitative syntheses and quality assessment were performed for articles on rurality, trauma exposure, and sexual orientation. RESULTS: We screened 7242 citations and found 131 eligible articles-99 compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and 40 included engaged vs non-engaged Veterans. Most articles were cross-sectional and addressed socioeconomic factors (e.g., education and income). Fewer articles addressed rurality (N = 20), trauma exposure (N = 17), or sexual orientation (N = 2); none examined gender identity. We found no differences in rural residence between Veterans and non-Veterans, nor between engaged and non-engaged Veterans (moderate strength evidence). There was insufficient evidence for role of rurality in health behaviors, health services utilization, or health outcomes. Trauma exposures, including from events preceding military service, were more prevalent for Veterans vs non-Veterans and for engaged vs non-engaged Veterans (low-strength evidence); exposures were associated with smoking (low-strength evidence). DISCUSSION: Little published literature exists on some emerging social determinants. We found no differences in rural residence between our groups of interest, but trauma exposure was higher in Veterans (vs non-Veterans) and engaged (vs non-engaged). We recommend consistent measures for social determinants, clear conceptual frameworks, and analytic strategies that account for the complex relationships between social determinants and health.