Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices within Treatment-As-Usual and Evidence-Based Practice Initiatives
We examined EBP implementation in a treatment as usual (TAU) state and in six states with publicly funded EBP initiatives (EBPIs). In Study 1, we examined providers ’ use of practices derived from the evidence base (PDEB) and their predictors among 780 providers in a TAU state. In Study 2, we conducted a systematic review of implementation strategies, outcomes, and predictors of EBP use in six state funded EBPIs. Study 1 suggests TAU providers use PDEB alongs ide practices without consistent research support; provider racial/ethnic minority status, learning theory orientation, and manual use predict greater PDEB use. Study 2 indicates EBPIs employ multiple recommended implementation strategies with variable outcomes across studies and measurement approac hes. Predictors of EBP use in EBPIs also varied, though training, setting, and youth age were consistent predictors across studies. While sample differences and inconsistent measurement across studies made direct comparisons somewhat tenuous, rates of PDEB use in the TAU sample appeared similar to t hose in publicly funded EBPIs. However, two states reported comparisons with TAU samples and found higher EBP implementation under EBPI. Different predictors impacted EBP use in TAU versus EBPIs. Our findings highlight the need for improved evaluation of EBPIs including clear reporting standards for outcomes and more consistent, standardized measurement of EBP use in order to better understand and improve EBPIs.