Cited by 1,894Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient Involvement

Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: an Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges

Open access
Proctor, Enola K., Landsverk, John, Aarons, Gregory, Chambers, David, Glisson, Charles, Mittman, Brian·2009·Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research

Abstract

One of the most critical issues in mental health services research is the gap between what is known about effective treatment and what is provided to consumers in routine care. Concerted efforts are required to advance implementation science and produce skilled implementation researchers. This paper seeks to advance implementation science in mental health services by over viewing the emergence of implementation as an issue for research, by addressing key issues of language and conceptualization, by presenting a heuristic skeleton model for the study of implementation processes, and by identifying the implications for research and training in this emerging field.

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 · 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • If a program lacks acceptability and feasibility, its efficacy in controlled clinical trials is unlikely to translate to effectiveness in real-world settings.

    “These are all important considerations, because if the program lacks acceptability and feasibility, its efficacy in controlled clinical trials is unlikely to translate to effectiveness in diverse real-world settings (health care, education, etc.; Proctor et al., 2009).”

    From Acceptability and Feasibility of an Intervention to Enhance Social Group Belonging: Evidence From Three Trials of Groups 4 Health (2022) · cites this paper as Proctor et al., 2009

    The ‘Dissemination Versus Implementation’ section says that efficacy-study results may need adaptation to improve feasibility and that creating evidence-based treatments does not ensure their use in practice. ‘The Challenge of Implementation Research Methods’ identifies acceptability and feasibility as implementation outcomes. The paper supports the concern about translation into routine mental health care, but does not establish the claim for education settings or say that lacking those qualities makes a program’s real-world treatment effectiveness unlikely. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The time lag between research discovery and routine uptake is inflated by the dominant developmental approach that encourages delimited, step-wise progressions through clinical efficacy research, clinical effectiveness research, and implementation research.

    “Glasgow et al4 and others17–20 argue that the time lag between research discovery and routine uptake is also inflated by the dominant developmental approach; that is, one that encourages delimited, step-wise progressions of research through clinical efficacy research, then clinical effectiveness research, and finally implementation research.”

    From Effectiveness-implementation Hybrid Designs: Combining Elements of Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation Research to Enhance Public Health Impact (2012) · cites this paper as [20]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Equity is a key service system outcome.

    “Equity is a key service system outcome [1, 62].”

    From Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review (2023) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Challenge of Implementation Research Methods (page unavailable) identifies consumer well-being and several implementation outcomes, but does not identify equity as a service-system outcome. Searches for “equity service system outcome” and “equitable access disparities outcomes services” found no passage addressing that point. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches can yield richer information than either method alone for studying implementation outcomes.

    “To study implementation outcomes, mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches can yield richer information than either method alone (Landsverk et al., 2012;Palinkas et al., 2011;Proctor et al., 2009).”

    From Perceived acceptability and appropriateness of a web-based program targeting risk for anxiety in young children and their parents (2025) · cites this paper as Proctor et al., 2009

    “The Challenge of Implementation Research Methods” discusses measuring implementation outcomes and using multilevel designs, while “Multi-level Models of Change” mentions qualitative studies and statistical approaches separately. Our copy does not say that combining qualitative and quantitative methods yields richer information than either alone (searched: mixed methods, qualitative quantitative). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Proctor et al. have proposed a model that informs evaluation by differentiating implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, and identifying a range of implementation outcomes that can be assessed.

    “Similarly, Proctor et al.[46] have proposed a model that informs evaluation by differentiating implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, and identifying a range of implementation outcomes that can be assessed [24].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Grimshaw J 2007 Improving the scientific basis of health care research dissemination and implementation Paper presented at NIH Conference on Building the Sciences of Dissemination and Implementation in the Service of Public Health Washington, DC
  2. Proctor EK Landsverk J 2005 Challenges of translating evidence-based treatments into practice contexts and service sectors Paper presented at The Mental Health Services Research Conference Washington, DC

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Proctor, E. K., Landsverk, J., Aarons, G., Chambers, D., Glisson, C., & Mittman, B.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of California System (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Proctor, Enola K.
Venue
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Published
2008-12-23
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
24-34
ISSN
  • 0894-587X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3289
OpenAlex
W2097206783
Cited by
1,894
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 142 · 2023: 155 · 2022: 143 · 2021: 227 · 2020: 213 · 2019: 139 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 95 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 46
FWCI
50.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p30mh068579-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (5 P30 MH068579, P30-MH-068579, R21MH082731, R25MH080916)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
implementation research, mental health services, implementation process, knowledge-practice gap
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Health Services Research, Humans, Mental Health Services, Models, Theoretical, Information Dissemination, Evidence-Based Practice

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