Supporting the mental health needs of underserved communities: A qualitative study of barriers to accessing community resources.

This study examined the accessibility of community resources (e.g., welfare programs and afterschool programs) for underserved youth and families with mental health needs. Mental health professionals (n = 52) from a large community mental health and welfare agency serving predominantly low-income, Latinx families completed a semistructured interview that asked about the accessibility of community resources. Participant responses were coded using an inductive thematic analysis. Results showed that 71% of participants endorsed availability barriers (e.g., limited local programs), 37% endorsed logistical barriers (e.g., waitlists), 27% endorsed attitudinal barriers (e.g., stigmatized beliefs about help-seeking), and 23% endorsed knowledge barriers (e.g., lacking awareness about local programs). Professionals' perceived availability barriers were mostly consistent with the actual availability of community resources. Findings highlight the compounding challenges that underserved communities face and point to opportunities for promoting enhanced well-being and functioning for youth and families with mental health needs.

Community Mental Health Professionals' Perceptions About Engaging Underserved Populations.

This study explored mental health professionals' perceptions about barriers and facilitators to engaging underserved populations. Responses were coded using an iterative thematic analysis based on grounded theory. Results revealed that many professionals endorsed barriers to engaging ethnic minorities and families receiving social services. Client-provider racial and linguistic matching, therapy processes and procedures (e.g., nonjudgmental stance), and implementation supports (e.g., supervision) were commonly nominated as engagement facilitators. Many professionals felt that an organizational culture focused on productivity is detrimental to client engagement. Findings shed light on professionals' perceived barriers to delivering high-quality care to underserved communities and illuminate potential engagement strategies.

What Therapy Practices Do Providers Value in Youth Behavioral Health? A Measure Development Study.

Existing measures of attitudes toward evidence-based practices (EBPs) assess attitudes toward manualized or research-based treatments. Providers of youth behavioral health (N = 282) completed the Valued Practices Inventory (VPI), a new measure of provider attitudes toward specific practices for youth that avoids mention of EBPs by listing specific therapies-some of which are drawn from EBPs (e.g., problem solving) and some of which are not included in EBPs (e.g., dream interpretation). Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors: practices derived from the evidence base (PDEB) and alternative techniques (AT). The PDEB scale was significantly correlated with scales on the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale-50 (Aarons et al. in Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39(5): 331-340, 2012), whereas the AT scale was not. Attitudes toward PDEB and AT were also related to provider characteristics such as years of experience and work setting. The VPI offers a complementary approach to existing measures of attitudes because it avoids mention of EBPs, which may help prevent biases in responses.

Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Implementation outcome measures are essential for monitoring and evaluating the success of implementation efforts. Yet, currently available measures lack conceptual clarity and have largely unknown reliability and validity. This study developed and psychometrically assessed three new measures: the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). METHODS: Thirty-six implementation scientists and 27 mental health professionals assigned 31 items to the constructs and rated their confidence in their assignments. The Wilcoxon one-sample signed rank test was used to assess substantive and discriminant content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) and Cronbach alphas were used to assess the validity of the conceptual model. Three hundred twenty-six mental health counselors read one of six randomly assigned vignettes depicting a therapist contemplating adopting an evidence-based practice (EBP). Participants used 15 items to rate the therapist's perceptions of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of adopting the EBP. CFA and Cronbach alphas were used to refine the scales, assess structural validity, and assess reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess known-groups validity. Finally, half of the counselors were randomly assigned to receive the same vignette and the other half the opposite vignette; and all were asked to re-rate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess test-retest reliability and linear regression to assess sensitivity to change. RESULTS: All but five items exhibited substantive and discriminant content validity. A trimmed CFA with five items per construct exhibited acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.79 to 0.94). The alphas for 5-item scales were between 0.87 and 0.89. Scale refinement based on measure-specific CFAs and Cronbach alphas using vignette data produced 4-item scales (α's from 0.85 to 0.91). A three-factor CFA exhibited acceptable fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.75 to 0.89), indicating structural validity. ANOVA showed significant main effects, indicating known-groups validity. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.88. Regression analysis indicated each measure was sensitive to change in both directions. CONCLUSIONS: The AIM, IAM, and FIM demonstrate promising psychometric properties. Predictive validity assessment is planned.

Intentional research design in implementation science: implications for the use of nomothetic and idiographic assessment.

The advancement of implementation science is dependent on identifying assessment strategies that can address implementation and clinical outcome variables in ways that are valid, relevant to stakeholders, and scalable. This paper presents a measurement agenda for implementation science that integrates the previously disparate assessment traditions of idiographic and nomothetic approaches. Although idiographic and nomothetic approaches are both used in implementation science, a review of the literature on this topic suggests that their selection can be indiscriminate, driven by convenience, and not explicitly tied to research study design. As a result, they are not typically combined deliberately or effectively. Thoughtful integration may simultaneously enhance both the rigor and relevance of assessments across multiple levels within health service systems. Background on nomothetic and idiographic assessment is provided as well as their potential to support research in implementation science. Drawing from an existing framework, seven structures (of various sequencing and weighting options) and five functions (Convergence, Complementarity, Expansion, Development, Sampling) for integrating conceptually distinct research methods are articulated as they apply to the deliberate, design-driven integration of nomothetic and idiographic assessment approaches. Specific examples and practical guidance are provided to inform research consistent with this framework. Selection and integration of idiographic and nomothetic assessments for implementation science research designs can be improved. The current paper argues for the deliberate application of a clear framework to improve the rigor and relevance of contemporary assessment strategies.