Cited by 606Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychiatric care and mental health services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implementing Measurement-Based Care in Behavioral Health: A Review

Open access

Abstract

Importance: Measurement-based care (MBC) is the systematic evaluation of patient symptoms before or during an encounter to inform behavioral health treatment. Despite MBC's demonstrated ability to enhance usual care by expediting improvements and rapidly detecting patients whose health would otherwise deteriorate, it is underused, with typically less than 20% of behavioral health practitioners integrating it into their practice. This narrative review addresses definitional issues, offers a concrete and evaluable operationalization of MBC fidelity, and summarizes the evidence base and utility of MBC. It also synthesizes the extant literature's characterization of barriers to and strategies for supporting MBC implementation, sustainment, and scale-up. Observations: Barriers to implementing MBC occur at multiple levels: patient (eg, concerns about confidentiality breach), practitioner (eg, beliefs that measures are no better than clinical judgment), organization (eg, no resources for training), and system (eg, competing requirements). Implementation science-the study of methods to integrate evidence-based practices such as MBC into routine care-offers strategies to address barriers. These strategies include using measurement feedback systems, leveraging local champions, forming learning collaboratives, training leadership, improving expert consultation with clinical staff, and generating incentives. Conclusions and Relevance: This narrative review, informed by implementation science, offers a 10-point research agenda to improve the integration of MBC into clinical practice: (1) harmonize terminology and specify MBC's core components; (2) develop criterion standard methods for monitoring fidelity and reporting quality of implementation; (3) develop algorithms for MBC to guide psychotherapy; (4) test putative mechanisms of change, particularly for psychotherapy; (5) develop brief and psychometrically strong measures for use in combination; (6) assess the critical timing of administration needed to optimize patient outcomes; (7) streamline measurement feedback systems to include only key ingredients and enhance electronic health record interoperability; (8) identify discrete strategies to support implementation; (9) make evidence-based policy decisions; and (10) align reimbursement structures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 90 references

1 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Glasziou, 2012, Pay for performance: how to make it worth doing., BMJ, 345, 22

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 606

Metadata

Authors
Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M., Puspitasari, A., Navarro, E., Howard, J., Kassab, H., Hoffman, M., Scott, K., Lyon, A., Douglas, S., Simon, G., & Kroenke, K.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Ohio University (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2019-03-01
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
324
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904026243
Cited by
605
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 110 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 11
FWCI
6.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH111134, R01MH103310)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
measurement-based care, behavioral health, implementation barriers, implementation fidelity, psychotherapy, electronic health records interoperability, learning collaborative, local champions, reimbursement policy
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Mental Health Services, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review