Effect of Providing Evidence-Based Mental Health Treatment on Retention in Care Among Medicaid-Enrolled Youths.

OBJECTIVE: Youths who start behavioral health treatment often stop before completing a therapeutic course of care. To increase treatment engagement and quality of care, the Evidence-Based Practice and Innovation Center in Philadelphia has incentivized use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for mental health care of youths. The authors aimed to compare treatment outcomes between youths who received EBP care and those who did not. METHODS: Using EBP-specific billing codes and propensity score matching, the authors compared treatment retention among youths who received trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT; N=413) or parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT; N=90) relative to matched samples of youths in standard outpatient therapy (N=503). RESULTS: Youths with a minimum of one session of TF-CBT or PCIT attended a second session at higher rates than did youths in the matched control group (TF-CBT: 96% vs. 68%, p<0.01; PCIT: 94% vs. 69%, respectively, p<0.01). On average, these returning youths attended more sessions in the EBP groups than in the control group (TF-CBT: 15.9 vs. 11.5 sessions, p<0.01; PCIT: 11.2 vs. 6.9 sessions, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that, in addition to improving quality of care, EBP implementation helps address the major challenge that most youths who engage with treatment are not retained long enough for care to have therapeutic effects. Future research should examine the mechanisms through which EBPs can improve treatment retention.

A Mixed Methods Examination of Session Planning Among Public Mental Health Therapists.

Session planning is a core activity for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs), yet it is unknown whether public mental health settings provide the support for therapists to session plan. This two-part study conducted in collaboration with EBP leaders in Philadelphia's public mental health system deployed mixed methods to examine therapists' session planning practices and preferences. In Study 1, 61 public mental health therapists completed an online survey to identify session planning barriers and facilitators, current practices, and desired planning supports. In Study 2, nine therapists who ranked a session planning tool as a top choice support in Study 1 participated in two focus groups to elaborate on their survey responses and provide feedback on three session planning tool prototypes. Study 1 survey respondents cited multi-level barriers and facilitators to session planning. In both closed- and open-ended responses, analyzed descriptively and via content analysis respectively, therapists described wanting more time, lower caseloads, financial incentives for session planning, and additional clinical resources and guidance from trainings, peers, and supervisors to support session planning. Study 2 focus group participants, whose responses were analyzed using content analysis, reiterated the need for these multi-level supports and expressed the need for a "one-stop" database of session planning tools that would be free, easily searchable, and modifiable for varied clinical needs. All three session planning tool prototypes reviewed were acceptable; two were also considered feasible and appropriate. This investigation of an under-studied aspect of the EBP implementation process reveals the need for multi-level session planning supports.

Implementing trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy in Philadelphia: A 10-year evaluation.

Background: In 2012, Philadelphia's Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS) developed an initiative to implement an evidence-based treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), across the city's behavioral health system. This report evaluates the initiative's 10-year implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Method: The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework guided our implementation evaluation. The implementation outcomes include adoption, reach, and sustainment; these were obtained during regular evaluation data collection from publicly funded behavioral health agencies participating in the TF-CBT initiative. We analyze effectiveness outcomes (i.e., changes in PTSD symptoms) from a subset of patients receiving TF-CBT, which were collected in 6-month intervals by our research team between 2013 and 2021. Results: From 2012 to 2021, DBHIDS trained 478 clinicians in TF-CBT across 20 behavioral health agencies. During this time, 23,401 youths were screened for potentially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms, and 7,550 youths received TF-CBT. Through the TF-CBT initiative, the city expanded the network of TF-CBT providers from 3 to 20 agencies. DBHIDS sustained this network by maintaining the participation of 16 behavioral health agencies over the course of a decade. The subset of 202 youths who were evaluated to assess TF-CBT effectiveness was drawn from 94 therapists and 20 agencies across Philadelphia. All participating youths completed a baseline assessment, and 151 (75%) completed at least one follow-up assessment. Linear mixed-effects models accounting for observations nested within participants and nested within clinicians found that treatment significantly reduced PTSD symptoms. Conclusion: Between 2012 and 2021, DBHIDS successfully implemented and sustained TF-CBT across the city's behavioral health system. Adoption, reach, and sustainment of TF-CBT were high. Despite the considerable adverse experiences faced by youths seeking treatment in Philadelphia's behavioral health system, TF-CBT was effective. Future directions to improve TF-CBT implementation in the next iteration of the initiative are described.

This practical implementation report describes a 10-year effort by the city of Philadelphia to develop a trauma-informed behavioral health system, making this report one of the longest evaluations of an implementation initiative in a large metropolitan area in the United States. In particular, the report describes the implementation and effectiveness outcomes of Philadelphia's Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS)'s implementation of the evidence-based treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), across the city's behavioral health agencies. From 2012 to 2021, DBHIDS trained 478 clinicians in TF-CBT across 20 behavioral health agencies. During this time, 23,401 youths were screened for posttraumatic stress symptoms, and 7,550 youths received TF-CBT. A subset of 202 youths receiving TF-CBT from 94 therapists across 20 Philadelphia agencies were evaluated to assess the initiative's effectiveness. Linear mixed-effects models revealed that youths receiving TF-CBT from DBHIDS-trained clinicians saw their PTSD symptoms significantly reduce. The initiative's success in adoption, reach, sustainment, and effectiveness reveals the promise of sustained, multipronged, community-partnered implementation initiatives. In the future, researchers and policymakers must account for and address the structural and financial barriers that hinder these community-partnered implementation efforts from realizing their full potential in improving population health.

Power Redistribution and Upending White Supremacy in Implementation Research and Practice in Community Mental Health.

This Open Forum explores how implementation research and practice may sustain White supremacist ideas, perpetuate unequal power dynamics, and maintain mental health care inequities. The following questions were considered: What information is valued and considered evidence? and How do power differentials within implementation research and practice manifest? The implementation of evidence-based interventions within community mental health clinics is used as an example to explore these questions. Recommendations are provided to envision a future that centers collaboratively developed and community-led approaches to foster equity in mental health care.

Community Mental Health Clinicians' Perspectives on Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, a rapid shift to telehealth occurred in community mental health settings in response to the need for physical distancing to decrease transmission of the virus causing COVID-19. Whereas treatment delivered over telehealth was previously utilized sparingly in community settings, it quickly became the primary mode of treatment delivery for the vast majority of clinicians, many of whom had little time to prepare for this shift and limited to no experience using telehealth. Little is known about community mental health clinicians' experiences using telehealth. Although telehealth may make mental health treatment more accessible for some clients, it may create additional barriers for others given the high rates of poverty among individuals seeking treatment from community mental health centers. OBJECTIVE: We examined community mental health clinicians' perspectives on using telehealth to deliver trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy to youth. We sought to better understand the acceptability of using telehealth, as well as barriers and facilitators to usage. METHODS: We surveyed 45 clinicians across 15 community clinics in Philadelphia. Clinicians rated their satisfaction with telehealth using a quantitative scale and shared their perspectives on telehealth in response to open-ended questions. Therapists' responses were coded using an open-coding approach wherein coders generated domains, themes, and subthemes. RESULTS: Clinicians rated telehealth relatively positively on the quantitative survey, expressing overall satisfaction with their current use of telehealth during the pandemic, and endorsing telehealth as a helpful mode of connecting with clients. Responses to open-ended questions fell into five domains. Clinicians noted that (1) telehealth affects the content (ie, what is discussed) and process (ie, how it is discussed) of therapy; (2) telehealth alters engagement, retention, and attendance; (3) technology is a crucial component of utilizing telehealth; (4) training, resources, and support are needed to facilitate telehealth usage; and (5) the barriers, facilitators, and level of acceptability of telehealth differ across individual clinicians and clients. CONCLUSIONS: First, telehealth is likely a better fit for some clients and clinicians than others, and attention should be given to better understanding who is most likely to succeed using this modality. Second, although telehealth increased convenience and accessibility of treatment, clinicians noted that across the board, it was difficult to engage clients (eg, young clients were easily distracted), and further work is needed to identify better telehealth engagement strategies. Third, for many clients, the telehealth modality may actually create an additional barrier to care, as children from families living in poverty may not have the requisite devices or quality broadband connection to make telehealth workable. Better strategies to address disparities in access to and quality of digital technologies are needed to render telehealth an equitable option for all youth seeking mental health services.

Economic Precarity, Financial Strain, and Job-Related Stress Among Philadelphia's Public Mental Health Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Efforts to improve mental health treatment delivery come at a time of rising inequality and cuts or insufficient increases to mental health funding. Public mental health clinicians face increased demands, experience economic stress, and treat underresourced patients disproportionately burdened by trauma. The authors sought to understand clinicians' current economic and psychological conditions and the relationship of these conditions to the delivery of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) designed to treat posttraumatic stress disorder among youths. METHODS: In July 2020, 49 public mental health clinicians from 16 Philadelphia clinics who were trained in an EBI, trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), were surveyed by e-mail. Respondents reported on their economic precarity, financial strain, burnout, secondary traumatic stress (i.e., the stress response associated with caring for people exposed to trauma), and TF-CBT use. Associations between clinicians' job-related stressors and their use of TF-CBT were examined with mixed models. Content coding was used to organize clinicians' open-ended responses to questions regarding financial strain related to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Clinicians' economic precarity, financial strain, and job-related stress were high; 37% of clinicians were independent contractors, 44% of whom wanted a salaried position. Of 37 clinicians with education debt, 38% reported owing ≥$100,000. In the past year, 29% of clinicians reported lack of personal mental health care because of cost, and 22% met the cutoff for experiencing secondary traumatic stress symptoms. Education debt was negatively associated with use of TF-CBT (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The stress of providing care in underresourced clinical settings may interfere with efforts to integrate scientific evidence into mental health care.