Cited by 9Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and Access

Commentary: a pathway forward for implementation science in the search to accelerate the delivery of effective mental health treatment and services for youth: reflections on Williams and beidas (2019)

Pintello, Denise·2019·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Over the past several decades, implementation science has emerged as a promising new field designed to reduce the gap between research and practice. One population that has not fully benefitted from recent efforts to implement evidence‐based mental health treatment and services are children and adolescents. In the review by Williams and Beidas, the authors provide a thoughtful discussion on where the implementation science field has previously been within the area of child psychology and psychiatry, identified the scientific limitations of prior phases or ‘waves’ in the historical development of implementation science, and recommend where the field needs to go – by underscoring the importance of developing and testing multilevel, integrated causal theories and mechanism‐based approaches. This commentary draws attention to the importance of the perspectives and recommendations proposed in this review, which offer the potential to generate new advances in the field of implementation science that will ultimately, improve mental health care and clinical outcomes for youth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpp.13037

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 Pintello, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pintello, D.
Affiliations
National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Corresponding author
Pintello, Denise
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-27
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
451-454
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2929649746
Cited by
9
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Center for Scientific Review
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
implementation science, youth mental health, evidence-based treatment, research-practice gap, child and adolescent psychiatry, mental health service delivery
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Adolescent, Child, Psychology, Child, Humans, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Psychiatry

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