CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 233Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Annual Research Review: The state of implementation science in child psychology and psychiatry: a review and suggestions to advance the field

Open access
Williams, Nathaniel J., Beidas, Rinad S.·2019·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12960PMC PMC6389440
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Scientists have developed evidence‐based interventions that improve the symptoms and functioning of youth with psychiatric disorders; however, these interventions are rarely used in community settings. Eliminating this research‐to‐practice gap is the purview of implementation science, the discipline devoted to the study of methods to promote the use of evidence‐based practices in routine care. Methods: We review studies that have tested factors associated with implementation in child psychology and psychiatry, explore applications of social science theories to implementation, and conclude with recommendations to advance implementation science through the development and testing of novel, multilevel, causal theories. Results: During its brief history, implementation science in child psychology and psychiatry has documented the implementation gap in routine care, tested training approaches and found them to be insufficient for behavior change, explored the relationships between variables and implementation outcomes, and initiated randomized controlled trials to test implementation strategies. This research has identified targets related to implementation (e.g., clinician motivation, organizational culture) and demonstrated the feasibility of activating these targets through implementation strategies. However, the dominant methodological approach has been atheoretical and predictive, relying heavily on a set of variables from heuristic frameworks. Conclusions: Optimizing the implementation of effective treatments in community care for youth with psychiatric disorders is a defining challenge of our time. This review proposes a new direction focused on developing and testing integrated causal theories. We recommend implementation scientists: (a) move from observational studies of implementation barriers and facilitators to trials that include causal theory; (b) identify a core set of implementation determinants; (c) conduct trials of implementation strategies with clear targets, mechanisms, and outcomes; (d) ensure that behaviors that are core to EBP s are clearly defined; and (e) agree upon standard measures. This agenda will help fulfill the promise of evidence‐based practice for improving youth behavioral health.

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 · 10.1111/jcpp.12960

Cites

121 of 121 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?

  • There are growing expectations to hypothesize about and measure expected mechanisms of action for implementation strategies (Lewis et al., 2018; Pintello, 2019; Williams and Beidas, 2019).

    “Further, there are growing expectations to hypothesize about and measure expected mechanisms of action for the implementation strategies (Lewis et al., 2018; Pintello, 2019; Williams and Beidas, 2019).”

    From An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs (2019) · cites this paper as Williams and Beidas, 2019

  • Greater community involvement in the processes that shape both research and its clinical implementation is one way to accelerate translation.

    “One way to accelerate translation is to have greater community involvement in the processes that shape both research and its clinical implementation (Collins et al., 2018; N. J. Williams & Beidas, 2019).”

    From ‘You feel part of something bigger’: Stakeholders’ experiences of a long-term community–academic participatory research partnership (2025) · cites this paper as N. J. Williams & Beidas, 2019

    The Introduction discusses the research-to-practice gap and implementation in community settings, but does not say that greater community involvement in shaping research and clinical implementation would accelerate translation. Searches for community engagement, stakeholder involvement, and participation in research and implementation found no passage making that point. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • It is not common that mechanisms of implementation strategies are even mentioned, much less tested.

    “Unfortunately, it is not common that mechanisms are even mentioned, much less tested (63, 65, 66).”

    From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [66]

  • Extensive research has identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of new practices at the individual provider, organization, and system levels; however, the team level has received little empirical attention.

    “Extensive research has identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of new practices at the individual provider, organization, and system levels; however, the team level has received little empirical attention [20, 21].”

    From Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Ajzen I (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Dorsey Press, 166.
  2. Avolio BJ, Bass BM, & Jung DI (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441– 462.
  3. Bass BM (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130– 139.
  4. Beidas RS, & Kendall PC (2014). Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices in child and adolescent mental health. New York: NY: Oxford University Press.
  5. Cameron KS, & Quinn RE (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  6. Chorpita BF, Becker KD, Daleiden EL, & Hamilton JD (2007). Understanding the common elements of evidence-based practice: Misconceptions and clinical examples. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(5), 647– 652. 17450056
  7. Committee on Developing Evidence-Based Standards for Psychosocial Interventions for Mental Disorders. (2015). Quality Measurement In England MJ, Butler AS, & Gonzalez ML (Eds.), Psychosocial Interventions for Mental and Substance Use Disorders: A Framework for Establishing Evidence-Based Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 26203478
  8. Cooke RA, & Rousseau DM (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group and Organization Studies, 13(3), 245– 273.
  9. Deci EL, & Ryan RM (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective In Deci EL & Ryan RM (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3– 33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
  10. Eccles MP, & Mittman BS (2006). Welcome to Implementation Science. Implementation Science, 1(1), 1.
  11. Fishbein M, & Ajzen I (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  12. Greenberg J (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399– 432.
  13. Howarth E, Devers K, Moore G, O’Cathain A, & Dixon-Woods M (2016). Contextual issues and qualitative research In Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, Bower P, Campbell M, Denis J-L, & Devers K (Eds.), Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health (Vol. 4). Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library. 27227187
  14. James LR, Choi CC, Ko CE, McNeil PK, Minton MK, Wright MA, & Kim K (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5– 32.
  15. Jensen-Doss A, Hawley KM, Lopez M, & Osterberg LD (2009). Using evidence-based treatments: The experiences of youth providers working under a mandate. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(4), 417.
  16. Kazdin AE (2018). Innovations in psychosocial interventions and their delivery: Leveraging cutting-edge science to improve the world’s mental health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  17. Klein KJ, Dansereau F, & Hall RJ (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195– 229.
  18. MacWilliams K, Curran J, Racek J, Cloutier P, & Cappelli M (2017). Barriers and facilitators to implementing the HEADS-ED: A rapid screening tool for pediatric patients in emergency departments. Pediatric Emergency Care, 33(12), 774– 780. 27248778
  19. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP, Schaufeli WB, & Schwab RL (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory (Vol. 21). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  20. Mathieu JE, & Zajac DM (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171.
  21. Okamura KH, Nakamura BJ, Mueller C, Hayashi K, & Higa-McMillan CK (2016). An exploratory factor analysis of the knowledge of evidence-based services questionnaire. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 43(2), 214– 232. 24488613
  22. Papoutsi C, Boaden R, Foy R, Grimshaw J, & Rycroft-Malone J (2016). Challenges for implementation science In Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, Bower P, Campbell M, Denis J-L, & Devers K (Eds.), Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health (Vol. 4). Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library. 27227187
  23. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, & Mandell DS (2017a). Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 44(2), 177– 194. 26289563 PMC4761530
  24. Rogers EM (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
  25. Schein EH (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, & Macey WH (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361– 388. 22856467
  27. Sheppard BH, Hartwick J, & Warshaw PR (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325– 343.
  28. Stephan S, Westin A, Lever N, Medoff D, Youngstrom E, & Weist M (2012). Do school-based clinicians’ knowledge and use of common elements correlate with better treatment quality? School Mental Health, 4(3), 170– 180.
  29. Stumpf RE, Higa-McMillan CK, & Chorpita BF (2009). Implementation of evidence-based services for youth: Assessing provider knowledge. Behavior Modification, 33(1), 48– 65. 18723838
  30. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, & Brownson RC (2012). Bridging research and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 337– 350. 22898128 PMC3592983
  31. Turner S, Goulding L, Denis J-L, McDonald R, & Fulop NJ (2016). Major system change: A management and organisational research perspective In Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, Bower P, Campbell M, Denis J-L, & Devers K (Eds.), Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health (Vol. 4, pp. 85– 104). Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library. 27227187
  32. Weersing VR, Rozenman M, & Gonzalez A (2009). Core components of therapy in youth: Do we know what to disseminate? Behavior Modification, 33(1), 24– 47. 18955540
  33. Weiner BJ, Amick H, & Lee SD (2008). Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review, 65(4), 379– 436. 18511812
  34. Weisz JR, Ng MY, & Bearman SK (2014). Odd couple? Reenvisioning the relation between science and practice in the dissemination-implementation era. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(1), 58– 74.
  35. Williams NJ, Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA, Marcus SC, & Beidas RS (under review). Linking molar organizational climate and strategic implementation climate to clinicians’ use of evidence-based psychotherapy techniques: Cross-sectional and lagged results from a two-year observational study. Implementation Science. PMC6019309 29940989
  36. Williams NJ, & Glisson C (2014). The role of organizational culture and climate in the dissemination and implementation of empirically-supported treatments for youth In Beidas RS & Kendall PC (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation of evidence based practices in child and adolescent mental health (pp. 61– 81). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  37. Williams NJ, & Glisson C (in press). Changing organizational social context to support evidence-based practice implementation: A conceptual and empirical review In Mildon R, Albers B, & Shlonsky A (Eds.), The Science of Implementation. New York, NY: Springer.
  38. Zohar D, & Hofmann DA (2012). Organizational culture and climate. Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 643– 666.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, N. J., & Beidas, R. S.
Affiliations
  • Boise State University (US)
  • Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (US)
Corresponding author
Beidas, Rinad S.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-25
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
430-450
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
DOI
10.1111/jcpp.12960
PMC
PMC6389440
OpenAlex
W2888127947
Cited by
233
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks (Boise State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH113840)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
implementation science, child and adolescent psychiatry, child psychology, evidence-based practice, research-practice gap, implementation strategies, implementation factors, causal theories, implementation outcomes, clinician training, organizational culture, youth mental health, community-based care
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Adolescent, Adolescent Psychiatry, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Psychiatry, Psychology, Child, Humans

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