The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 102 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This systematic review examines experimental studies that test the effectiveness of strategies intended to integrate empirically supported mental health interventions into routine care settings. Our goal was to characterize the state of the literature and to provide direction for future implementation studies. Method: A literature search was conducted using electronic databases and a manual search. Results: Eleven studies were identified that tested implementation strategies with a randomized ( n = 10) or controlled clinical trial design ( n = 1). The wide range of clinical interventions, implementation strategies, and outcomes evaluated precluded meta-analysis. However, the majority of studies ( n = 7; 64%) found a statistically significant effect in the hypothesized direction for at least one implementation or clinical outcome. Conclusion: There is a clear need for more rigorous research on the effectiveness of implementation strategies, and we provide several suggestions that could improve this research area.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review characterizes 11 experimental studies testing strategies to implement empirically supported mental health interventions into routine care. Most included studies were randomized (10/11) and tested multifaceted strategies (10/11), but heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis; 7 of 11 studies (64%) found a statistically significant effect in the hypothesized direction for at least one implementation or clinical outcome.
Key findings
- Eleven studies met inclusion criteria: 10 RCTs and 1 controlled clinical trial. Eight focused on child/adolescent mental health and three on adult mental health. The majority (n = 7; 64%) found a statistically significant effect in the hypothesized direction for at least one implementation or clinical outcome; all studies except Azocar et al. (2003) provided at least some support for the implementation strategies used.
- Only one study evaluated a discrete strategy (guideline dissemination), while 10 (91%) evaluated multifaceted strategies; nine of those included training. Only Glisson et al. (2010) evaluated a blended, manualized strategy (ARC). Passive strategies in isolation—such as disseminating guidelines or manuals and using opinion leaders—were ineffective.
- CFIR domains targeted by implementation strategies were: characteristics of individuals (100%, n = 11), inner setting (82%, n = 9), process of implementation (64%, n = 7), outer setting (55%, n = 6), and intervention characteristics (45%, n = 5). Mean domains addressed was 3.45 (range = 2–5) and mean subdomains was 9.73 (range = 4–20); there was no clear relationship between number of domains/subdomains and effectiveness.
- Ninety-one percent of studies (n = 10) evaluated at least one implementation or service system outcome, 36% (n = 4) evaluated clinical outcomes in addition, and 9% (n = 1) evaluated only clinical outcomes. Fidelity and provider attitudes/satisfaction were most frequent; only one study assessed costs (Kauth et al., 2010: $2,458.80 total cost for approximately 28 additional hours of CBT per month per therapist). Mean implementation/service system outcomes assessed was 2.09 (SD = 1.30); mean client outcomes was .82 (SD = 1.33).
Methods
- Systematic review searching CINAHL Plus, Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX on January 4, 2011, plus hand searches. The search identified 501 abstracts (492 database, 9 hand search), 25 full-text articles were screened, and 11 met inclusion criteria.
- Inclusion required empirical research implementing an empirically supported psychosocial treatment or practice guideline in mental health or social service systems, with both an implementation strategy and a comparative design meeting EPOC standards (RCT, CCT, controlled before-and-after, or interrupted time series). Studies focused primarily on physical health, substance abuse, pharmacological interventions, or testing clinical intervention efficacy/effectiveness were excluded.
- At least two reviewers independently extracted data using a modified Cochrane EPOC Data Abstraction Form, a Proctor et al. (2009)-guided outcomes checklist, and a CFIR-based checklist for strategy targets. No inter-rater reliability statistics were calculated; discrepancies were resolved through consensus meetings. Synthesis used tabulation, textual description, and vote-counting because meta-analysis was precluded.
Limitations
- The paper states that the small number of studies and diverse clinical interventions, implementation strategies, and outcomes made firm conclusions difficult; vote-counting gives equal weight to studies of varying sample sizes, effect sizes, and significance levels. It also states that grey literature was excluded, risk of bias/study quality was not assessed, reporting bias may have led to underestimating CFIR domains/subdomains addressed, the focus on rigorous designs limits learning from other designs, and the conceptual frameworks used have not been fully established empirically.
- Evident from the text: no meta-analysis was possible, no inter-rater reliability statistics were calculated, coding reliability was difficult particularly for CFIR domains, and only one included study evaluated implementation costs.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
73 Not checked yet · 42 Own result · 17 Own interpretation · 14 Own method · 7 No basis given · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Kauth et al. (2010) assessed the costs and benefits of external facilitation in increasing the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation, Service System, and Clinical Outcomes Evaluated
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Kauth et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods > Intervention section describes a trial comparing blended learning with a lecture for teaching general practitioners about dementia management. Our copy does not address Kauth et al. or an assessment of the costs and benefits of external facilitation for increasing CBT use (searched: Kauth, external facilitation, cognitive-behavioral therapy). No page numbers were provided for the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the majority of studies (n = 7; 64%) found a statistically significant effect in the hypothesized direction for at least one implementation or clinical outcome.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Abstract > Results
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The wide range of clinical interventions, implementation strategies, and outcomes evaluated precluded meta-analysis.”
- Also stated in: § Methods of Synthesis · plain
“The wide range of clinical interventions, implementation strategies, and outcomes evaluated in the included studies (see below) precluded meta-analysis.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Abstract > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Methods of Synthesis · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“45% (n = 5) of studies employed strategies that targeted intervention characteristics.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation Research Conceptual Domains
plainn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no other theory aside from Diffusion of Innovations theory was discussed more than once.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Guiding Theories and Conceptual Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Five studies (45%) explicitly referenced and/or discussed a guiding theory or conceptual model.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Guiding Theories and Conceptual Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovation theory was the most commonly mentioned, as it was discussed and/or cited in four articles.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Guiding Theories and Conceptual Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Azocar, Cuffel, Goldman, & McCarter (2003) conducted the only evaluation of a discrete strategy (disseminating guidelines), while the remaining studies (n =10; 91%) evaluated multifaceted implementation strategies (i.e., combinations of multiple implementation strategies).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Types of Strategies Evaluated
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Azocar et al., 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The child and adolescent mental health studies were conducted in diverse service settings, including: schools, daycare centers, foster care and child welfare settings, and community mental health agencies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Populations and Treatment Settings in Included Studies
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“9% (n = 1) evaluated only clinical outcomes”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation, Service System, and Clinical Outcomes Evaluated
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- Probably not a substantial claim. 40
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eleven studies were identified that tested implementation strategies with a randomized (n = 10) or controlled clinical trial design (n = 1).”
- Also stated in: § Study Designs · plain
“The majority of the studies (n = 10; 91%) were RCTs, and one study was a CCT.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The authors treated a treatment as empirically supported if the included study's authors cited evidence supporting its efficacy or effectiveness.
- Also stated in: § Study Designs · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Abstracts were screened for eligibility and 25 full-text articles were identified as potentially relevant.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Search Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean number of domains addressed was 3.45 (range = 2–5), and the mean number of sub-domains addressed was 9.73 (range = 4–20).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation Research Conceptual Domains
plainn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 501 abstracts were identified through the database (n = 492) and hand search (n = 9) process.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Search Results
plainn = 492- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, Glisson et al. (2010) and Chamberlain, Price, Reid, & Landsverk (2008) both conducted large-scale RCTs involving over 600 youth, whereas Kauth and colleagues (2010) and Kramer and Burns (2008) conducted small randomized studies (n = 23 and n = 17 respectively) that could be characterized as feasibility or pilot studies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Study Designs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kauth and colleagues (2010)
- Not checked yetcites Kramer and Burns (2008)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though their implementation approaches would not technically be classified as blended owing to a lack of manualization, we note that several studies evaluated multifaceted, multi-level implementation strategies by targeting multiple domains of the implementation context.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Types of Strategies Evaluated
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the mean number of sub-domains addressed was 9.73 (range = 4–20).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation Research Conceptual Domains
plainn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of studies (n = 7; 64%) found a statistically significant effect in the hypothesized direction for at least one implementation or clinical outcome”
- Also stated in: § Discussion and Applications to Social Work · boosted
“A promising finding of this review was that approximately two-thirds (64%) of studies demonstrated beneficial effects of employing implementation strategies to improve intermediate and/or clinical outcomes over the comparison conditions.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies
boosteddirectn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The outcome measures used in the included studies validly indicate implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, so that the review's synthesis of their effects is meaningful.
- Also stated in: § Discussion and Applications to Social Work · boosted
In the paper
“Kramer and Burns (2008) draw upon the characteristics of innovations that may make them easier to implement as they justify their selection of cognitive behavioral therapy by noting its relative advantage (it has been demonstrated to be effective in community trials), trialability (standardized components and manuals have been developed and can”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Guiding Theories and Conceptual Models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kramer and Burns, 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The adult mental health service settings included: outpatient mental health (through a managed behavioral health care organization), Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals, and psychiatric clinics (in Stockholm, Sweden)”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Populations and Treatment Settings in Included Studies
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Atkins and colleagues (2008) supported the use of opinion leaders as an implementation strategy by stating, “diffusion theory posits that novel interventions are initiated by a relatively small group of key opinion leaders (KOLs) who serve as influential models for others in their social network” (p. 905).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Guiding Theories and Conceptual Models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Atkins et al., 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some studies testing very comprehensive implementation strategies demonstrated positive effects (e.g., Forsner et al., 2010; Glisson et al., 2010); however, other studies also demonstrated positive effects with less comprehensive strategies (e.g., Herschell et al., 2009; Lochman et al., 2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Forsner et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites Glisson et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites Herschell et al., 2009
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The outcome measures used in the included studies validly indicate implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, so that the review's synthesis of their effects is meaningful.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One of the studies described in the Palinkas et al. (2008) article did not have final data published at the time of this search; however, the results have subsequently been published and the more recent article (Weisz et al., 2012) was examined in this review.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Search Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Palinkas et al. (2008)
- Not checked yetcites Weisz et al., 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, Glisson et al. (2010) and Chamberlain, Price, Reid, & Landsverk (2008) both conducted large-scale RCTs involving over 600 youth, whereas Kauth and colleagues (2010) and Kramer and Burns (2008) conducted small randomized studies (n = 23 and n = 17 respectively) that could be characterized as feasibility or pilot studies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Study Designs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glisson et al. (2010)
- Not checked yetcites Chamberlain, Price, Reid, & Landsverk (2008)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The external facilitation strategy resulted in a total cost (facilitator’s and therapists’ time) of $2,458.80 for a benefit of approximately 28 additional hours of CBT per month per therapist.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation, Service System, and Clinical Outcomes Evaluated
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kauth et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Client outcomes included symptom/behavioral checklists and out-of-home placements.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation, Service System, and Clinical Outcomes Evaluated
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though we did not calculate inter-rater reliability statistics (i.e., Cohen’s kappa), we found it difficult to achieve high reliability during the first round of coding, particularly when coding the theoretical domains outlined by Damschroder and colleagues (2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Data Extraction and Coding Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eight of the eleven included studies were conducted in child and adolescent mental health, with the remaining three focusing on adult mental health.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Populations and Treatment Settings in Included Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean number of implementation or service system outcomes assessed was 2.09 (SD = 1.30)”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Results > Implementation, Service System, and Clinical Outcomes Evaluated
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the present study, we found no difference in outcome attainment (clinical or implementation) between studies that targeted multiple theoretical domains or subdomains of the CFIR and studies that targeted fewer domains or subdomains, providing evidence that is consistent with Grimshaw and colleagues (2006).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grimshaw et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of CFIR domains or subdomains addressed by a study is a meaningful measure of the comprehensiveness of its implementation strategy, so that comparing studies by domain counts can inform conclusions about strategy effectiveness.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many other cases it was difficult to determine the scope and detail of the implementation strategies used, which obviously limits one’s ability to understand the implementation approach, let alone replicate it.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, while most studies effectively differentiated between clinical interventions and implementation strategies, the description and reporting of implementation strategies could be vastly improved.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Forsner et al. (2010) is one excellent example of a study that clearly describes the implementation strategies (even providing a separate box detailing the different strategies employed).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Forsner et al., 2010
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Efforts are underway to catalog and rate the quality of implementation related measures (Rabin et al., 2012) to promote the use of a wider array of valid and reliable instruments and serve to catalyze the development of new measures needed to advance the field.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rabin et al., 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, some studies (e.g., Atkins et al., 2008) addressed many CFIR domains and subdomains, but used implementation strategies that have been classified as passive (e.g., opinion leaders and educational meetings), whereas other studies (e.g., Lochman et al., 2009) addressed few domains but used implementation strategies that are considered relatively intensive”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Atkins et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites Lochman et al., 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Raghavan, Bright, & Shadoin (2008) have highlighted a number of potential change levers at the level of the “policy ecology;” however, few if any of these strategies have been tested empirically.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Raghavan, Bright, & Shadoin, 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“has led Landsverk, Brown, Rolls Reutz, Palinkas, & Horwitz (2011) to conclude that the field of mental health has lagged behind other disciplines in building an evidence-base for implementation.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Implementation Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Landsverk, Brown, Rolls Reutz, Palinkas, & Horwitz (2011)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Implementation research has emerged as one way of addressing the quality gaps in a variety of fields, including mental health (Brownson, Colditz, & Proctor, 2012, McMillen, 2012).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Implementation Research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brownson, Colditz, & Proctor, 2012
- Not checked yetcites McMillen, 2012
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It has been prioritized and supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH; National Institute of Mental Health, 2008; National Institutes of Health, 2013) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM; Institute of Medicine, 2007, 2009b), both of which have called for more research that focuses on the identification, development, refinement, and testing of implementation strategies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Implementation Research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites National Institute of Mental Health, 2008
- Not checked yetcites National Institutes of Health, 2013
- Not checked yetcites Institute of Medicine, 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“as Proctor, Powell, Baumann, Hamilton, & Santens (2012) note, conceptual models can be “…useful in framing a study theoretically and providing a ‘big picture’ of the hypothesized relationships between variables” (p. 6)”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Overview of Implementation Models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Proctor, Powell, Baumann, Hamilton, & Santens (2012)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the most consistent finding from this literature is that while passive approaches to implementation (e.g., single session workshops, distribution of treatment manuals) may increase provider knowledge and even predispose providers to adopt a treatment, passive approaches do little to produce provider behavior change (Davis & Davis, 2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Implementation Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davis & Davis, 2009
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, the review by Powell et al. (2012) identified 68 discrete strategies that can be used to plan, educate, finance, restructure, manage quality, and attend to the policy context to facilitate implementation.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Implementation Strategies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Powell et al., 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Each mutable aspect of the implementation context that the CFIR highlights is potentially amenable to the application of targeted and tailored implementation strategies (Powell et al., 2012).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Overview of Implementation Models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Powell et al., 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“EPOC designates four designs as appropriate for testing the effectiveness of implementation strategies, including: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2) controlled clinical trials (CCTs), 3) controlled before and after studies, and 4) interrupted time series studies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, 2002a
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This model captures the complex, multi-level nature (Shortell, 2004) of implementation, and suggests (implicitly) that successful implementation may necessitate the use of an array of strategies that exert their effects at multiple levels of the implementation context.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Overview of Implementation Models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shortell, 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The CFIR suggests that implementation is influenced by: 1) intervention characteristics (evidentiary support, relative advantage, adaptability, trialability, and complexity), 2) the outer setting (patient needs and resources, organizational connectedness, peer pressure, external policy and incentives), 3) the inner setting (structural characteristics, networks and communications, culture, climate,”
- Also stated in: § Overview of Implementation Models · plain
“4) the characteristics of individuals involved (knowledge, self-efficacy, stage of change, identification with organization, etc.), and 5) the process of implementation (planning, engaging, executing, reflecting, evaluating).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Overview of Implementation Models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Damschroder et al., 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Overview of Implementation Models · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though we did not calculate inter-rater reliability statistics (i.e., Cohen’s kappa), we found it difficult to achieve high reliability during the first round of coding, particularly when coding the theoretical domains outlined by Damschroder and colleagues (2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Data Extraction and Coding Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This approach was previously used to enrich the understanding of implementation strategies applied to alcohol screening and brief intervention (Williams et al., 2011).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Data Extraction and Coding Procedures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is partly due to wide variations in the quality of reporting and the justification for the use of implementation strategies in the included studies, a point that we consider further in the discussion section.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Data Extraction and Coding Procedures
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At least two reviewers independently reviewed and extracted data from each article.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Data Extraction and Coding Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus, we temper our interpretation of results accordingly.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Methods of Synthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These challenges compelled us to hold a number of face-to-face meetings in which coding discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Data Extraction and Coding Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Indeed, while the CFIR’s utility as a framework to guide empirical research is not fully established, it is consistent with the vast majority of frameworks and conceptual models in dissemination and implementation research in its emphasis of multi-level ecological factors (Tabak et al., 2012).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Introduction > Overview of Implementation Models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tabak et al., 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study design criteria required the use of a comparative design to test the implementation strategy that met standards of rigor set forth by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group (2002a).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Methods > Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Thus, there may be room for implementation programs that integrate protocolized adaptations, much in the same way that modular treatments (Weisz et al., 2012) allow clinicians to shift treatment protocols to meet client need.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Weisz et al., 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another challenge we faced was interpreting the results of studies that evaluated multifaceted strategies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, there may also be opportunities to address the “process” of implementation to develop implementation programs that are more flexible and adaptive to the needs of the implementation context.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Studies of large-scale implementation efforts have identified the importance of policy level implementation strategies (e.g., aligning financial incentives, altering certification and licensing standards, state partnerships with academic institutions to develop ESI training curriculum for students), and have suggested that different ESIs may even require different policy-level interventions (Isett”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Isett et al., 2007
- Not checked yetcites Magnabosco, 2006
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other approaches that have been described in the literature such as the “common elements” and transdiagnostic approaches to treatment may be similarly effective.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These common elements can be systematically identified, taught to clinicians, and applied flexibly to meet clients’ needs, relieving clinicians of the burden of learning a whole host of ESI protocols (Barth et al., 2012; Chorpita, Becker, & Daleiden, 2007).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barth et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Chorpita, Becker, & Daleiden, 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results from several studies seem to suggest that passive strategies (e.g., disseminating guidelines or manuals, opinion leaders) may represent promising approaches to implementation when combined with other strategies; however, in isolation, they may lack the intensity and comprehensiveness that successful implementation requires.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we did not formally evaluate the methodological quality of included studies, the need for reporting guidelines in implementation research were readily apparent.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In an effort to make meaningful comparisons between studies that had different design characteristics we linked the implementation strategies in the included studies to a conceptual framework of implementation (Damschroder et al., 2009). Doing so allowed us to explore implementation effectiveness at the level of the implementation context, which indirectly provided insight into debates regarding”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Damschroder et al., 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, cost was assessed in only one of the eleven studies, which severely limits the usefulness of this research to policy makers and organizational leaders who are charged with making decisions about which implementation”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Others have suggested that the reason for Grimshaw and colleagues’ (2006) finding is that many multifaceted strategies focus on only one level of the implementation context (Wensing, Bosch, & Grol, 2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wensing, Bosch, & Grol, 2009
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that assesses the effectiveness of implementation strategies within diverse settings where mental health treatments are delivered (e.g., community mental health centers, schools, daycare centers, foster care, etc.), and that links implementation strategies to conceptual targets deemed important in the implementation literature.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation outcomes such as acceptability, appropriateness, cost, and feasibility may all have direct bearing on whether a strategy or set of strategies will be effective in the “real world.””
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“these measures and frameworks can serve a very practical purpose by guiding the targeted application of implementation strategies to increase the likelihood of implementation success (Aarons et al., 2012).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aarons et al., 2012
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both of these approaches attempt to simplify the provision of evidence-based care by manipulating characteristics of the intervention to make them more widely applicable to the types of clients that clinicians are likely to serve in routine care, and may represent promising opportunities for implementation research.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The common elements approach is predicated on the idea that ESIs for a given disorder (e.g., childhood anxiety disorders) share many common features that contribute to their effectiveness.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barth et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Chorpita, Becker, & Daleiden, 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Grimshaw et al.’s (2006) extensive review of guideline implementation strategies in health concluded that there was no evidence that multifaceted strategies were superior to single-component strategies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grimshaw et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Transdiagnostic treatments provide unified treatment protocols for clinical disorders that have overlapping clinical features, high levels of co-occurrence, or common maintaining mechanisms (McHugh, Murray, & Barlow, 2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McHugh, Murray, & Barlow, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As Alexander and Hearld (2012) note, it is “difficult to parse out the effects of individual intervention components and determine whether some components are more important than others” (p. 4).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alexander and Hearld, 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, we did not assess risk of bias/study quality of the included studies”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we did not include “grey literature;” thus, we may have missed unpublished studies meeting our other inclusion criteria.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recently developed checklist based upon the WIDER Recommendations may further assist implementation researchers in reporting their studies (Albrecht, Archibald, Arseneau, & Scott, 2013).”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Albrecht, Archibald, Arseneau, & Scott, 2013
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We chose to use a “vote counting” approach to synthesis. This approach is prone to the limitations discussed above in the “methods of synthesis” section, but can be a useful way of providing an initial description of the patterns found across studies (Popay et al., 2006) and, coupled with the narrative approach to synthesis that we have utilized, is a useful way of summarizing included studies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Popay et al., 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite the utility of the WIDER Recommendations and other reporting guidelines, we also affirm Eccles et al. (2009) call for a suite of reporting guidelines for different types of implementation research.”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eccles et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These guidelines may be very helpful to researchers studying implementation strategies in mental health, as they implore researchers to: 1) provide detailed descriptions of interventions (and implementation strategies) in published papers, 2) clarify assumed change processes and design principles, 3) provide access to manuals and protocols that provide information about the clinical interventions”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Michie et al., 2009
- Not checked yetcites Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research, 2008
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our focus on the effectiveness of implementation strategies compelled us to focus on rigorous designs that minimize threats to internal validity”
§ A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions > Discussion and Applications to Social Work
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The authors treated a treatment as empirically supported if the included study's authors cited evidence supporting its efficacy or effectiveness.
“We assumed a treatment to be “empirically supported” if the authors cited evidence that supported its efficacy or effectiveness.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The published trial reports included in the review adequately disclose the theories or conceptual models that guided the studies, so that the review's assessment of theory use is not substantially limited by undisclosed theoretical foundations.
“We do acknowledge that our systematic review was focused on the discussion of theory within the published trial, yet it is possible that the theoretical foundation of the implementation intervention was discussed elsewhere.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of CFIR domains or subdomains addressed by a study is a meaningful measure of the comprehensiveness of its implementation strategy, so that comparing studies by domain counts can inform conclusions about strategy effectiveness.
“It is also possible that counting the number of CFIR domains addressed is a limited proxy for the intensity and comprehensives of the strategies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The outcome measures used in the included studies validly indicate implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, so that the review's synthesis of their effects is meaningful.
“Third, we did not assess risk of bias/study quality of the included studies”
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“In contrast, Powell and colleagues (2014) identified the use of 50 implementation strategies by agencies related to planning, education, finances, restructuring, and quality improvement.”
From Implementation-as-Usual in Community-Based Organizations Providing Specialized Services to Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Mixed Methods Study (2021) · cites this paper as Powell et al., 2014
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These integrated findings indicate that implementation of new ASD practices within ASD-CBOs may involve various strategies-some with supportive evidence (e.g., pilot ASD-EBP within the agency and revise, if needed; Powell et al., 2014) and others without evidence to support that they effectively change provider behavior (e.g., train staff only, 'just use [the practice]'; Fixsen et al., 2009).”
From Implementation-as-Usual in Community-Based Organizations Providing Specialized Services to Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Mixed Methods Study (2021) · cites this paper as Powell et al., 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“One of the richest descriptions of IAU comes from a mixed-methods study of seven social service organizations serving children, youth and families (Powell et al., 2013; Powell, 2014).”
From Implementation-as-Usual in Community-Based Organizations Providing Specialized Services to Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Mixed Methods Study (2021) · cites this paper as Powell, 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,639
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,670
Valente, T. W. (2003) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.gim.0000061743.67794.c4 · Cited by 20,559
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 · Cited by 8,721
Self-citationCrossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2002) · Journal for Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2002.tb00463.x · Cited by 8,508
Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators
Damanpour, F. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256406 · Cited by 6,542
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 · Cited by 4,888 · cited 1×
“For more examples of individual level factors that may be important to address during implementation, we direct readers to the Theoretical Domains Framework (Cane et al., 2012; Michie et al., 2005).”
BackgroundMaking psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review.
- *Chamberlain P., 2008, Child Welfare, 87, 27
- Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. (2002a). Data collection checklist (pp. 1–30). Retrieved from http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/datacollectionchecklist.pdf
- Gibbs L. E., 2003, Evidence-based practice for the helping professions
- Goldner E. M., 2011, Healthcare Policy, 7, 83
- Institute of Medicine, 2007, The state of quality improvement and implementation research: Workshop summary
- *Kauth M. R., 2010, Implementation Science, 5, 1, 10.1186/1748-5908-5-1 · DOI · Paper page
- National Institute of Mental Health, 2008, National Institute of Mental Health strategic plan
- Oxman A. D., 1995, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 153, 1424
- President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003, Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America: Final report
- Wensing M., 2009, Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice, 94
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–267 of 267
Walker, T. J., Are, F. G., Heredia, N. I., Onadeko, K., Saving, E. E., Kang, E., & Fernández, M. E. (2025) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-025-01790-2 · Cited by 2
Gewirtz, A. H., & Youssef, A. M. (2016) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316104453.013 · Cited by 2
Knowledge translation strategies for mobilizing individuals to implement pain evidence to practice
Tutelman, P. R., Chambers, C. T., & Barwick, M. A. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med/9780198818762.003.0058 · Cited by 2
Wong, R., & Kitto, S. C. (2023) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1097/ceh.0000000000000543 · Cited by 3
Levitt, J. M., Pestka, D. L., Blanchard, C., Sorge, L. A., & Sorensen, T. D. (2022) · Journal of the American Pharmacists Association · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2022.04.003 · Cited by 1
Einflussfaktoren bei der Implementierung von Expertenstandards in der Pflege
Niemann, L.-M., Gruber, E. M., & Büscher, A. (2024) · Pflege · doi:10.1024/1012-5302/a000994 · Cited by 1
Hill, C. L., Namara, K. M., Alston, L. V., Miles, A., Choi, J., & Shee, A. W. (2025) · International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1080/17549507.2025.2546001 · Cited by 1
Lorente-Català, R., Díaz‐García, A., Jaén, I., Gili, M., Mayoral, F., García‐Campayo, J., del Hoyo, Y. L., Castro, A., Hurtado, M. M., Planting, C. H. M., et al. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14176347 · Cited by 2
The Challenges and Potential Solutions for Disseminating Evidence-Based Practice in Child Protection
Dawe, S., & Harnett, P. H. (2025) · Psychiatric Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.psc.2025.07.005 · Cited by 1
Health Literacy Recommendations for Digital Mental Health Treatments
Fisher, A. C., Rezwan, A., Muscat, D. M., Ayre, J., Bisby, M. A., Hathway, T., Choi, I., Titov, N., & Dear, B. F. (2026) · HLRP Health Literacy Research and Practice · doi:10.3928/24748307-20250714-01 · Cited by 1
Merle, J. L., & Smith, J. D. (2026) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2026.1837215 · Cited by 1
Bertea, F., & Cardozo, G. (2022) · Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana · doi:10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.9084 · Cited by 1
Juckett, L., Bernard, K. P., & Thomas, K. S. (2023) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07757-4 · Cited by 1
Duff, J. S., Jeffries, L., Griffiths, J., Woollett, K., Carter, A., & Xu, H. G. (2024) · Workplace Health & Safety · doi:10.1177/21650799241249187 · Cited by 1
Reliability improvement process case study: PT HMS Tbk
Putri, S., & Utama, A. A. (2024) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Business Studies · doi:10.35912/jomabs.v1i4.2227 · Cited by 1
Bullock, H. L., Lavis, J. N., Mulvale, G. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2024) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2024.1371207 · Cited by 4
Cultivating an Organizational Culture of Evidence-Based Practice
Grandbois, K., McGrath, S., Penrod, S., & Douglas, N. (2024) · Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · doi:10.1044/2024_persp-24-00030 · Cited by 1
Brooke‐Sumner, C., Williams, P. P., Sorsdahl, K. R., Kruger, J., Mahomed, H., & MYERS, B. J. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-703529/v1 · Cited by 1
Akiba, C. F., Powell, B. J., Pence, B. W., Muessig, K. E., Golin, C. E., & Go, V. F.-L. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1626073/v1 · Cited by 1
Self-citationSinha-Bhamra, M. (2023) · doi:10.4079/ths2023.01 · Cited by 1
Sato, R. A. (2017) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.108149 · Cited by 1
Formation pour une intervention de réadaptation par les arts : un transfert de connaissances
Beaudoin-Dion, F., Dagenais, C., Archambault, K., & Garel, P. (2019) · Santé Publique · doi:10.3917/spub.187.0785
Shklarski, L. (2019) · CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York)
Scaling-up Child and Youth Mental Health Services: Assessing Coverage of a County-wide Initiative
Hooley, C. (2019) · Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) · doi:10.7936/dbhw-y076
Challenges to optimal therapy outcomes
Galovski, T. E., Nixon, R. D. V., & Kaysen, D. L. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816715-1.00005-4
Chapter 4. Clinical Implementation of the Cultural Formulation Interview
(2015) · American Psychiatric Association Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9781615373567.rlf04
Newman, K., Eerd, D. V., Powell, B. J., Urquhart, R., Cornelissen, E., Chan, V., & Lal, S. (2021) · doi:10.32920/14639157.v1
Self-citationNewman, K., Eerd, D. V., Powell, B. J., Urquhart, R., Cornelissen, E., Chan, V., & Lal, S. (2021) · doi:10.32920/14639157
Self-citationDev, S., & Shidhaye, R. R. (2022) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18602.1 · Cited by 1
O'BRIEN, A. (2023) · Cronfa (Swansea University) · doi:10.23889/suthesis.63004
Treichel, C. A. D. S., Chavez, L. J. E., Sevdalis, N., Bakolis, I., Hull, L., & Campos, R. T. O. (2024) · Saúde em Debate · doi:10.1590/2358-289820241418550p
Treichel, C. A. D. S., Chavez, L. J. E., Sevdalis, N., Bakolis, I., Hull, L., & Campos, R. T. O. (2024) · Saúde em Debate · doi:10.1590/2358-289820241418550i
Mehta, S., Barua, U., Nugent, M., Hansen, K., Sondhi, L., Upper, R., Wolfe, D. L., Roh, E., Sequeira, K., Teasell, R. W., et al. (2025) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/jrm.v57.40898 · Cited by 1
Effectiveness of a mental health mobile application for the academic community: A Longitudinal StudyPreprint
Rilveria, J. R. C., Grepo, L. C., Lim, P. M. Q., Malapit, J. A. N., Tan, B. E. D., Custodio, B. P., Landicho, S. C. D., & Isip-Tan, I. T. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6321910/v1
“It Resonates with Me!”: How Personal Motivation Affects the Implementation of Complex Interventions
Nymoen, K. D., Nissen‐Lie, H. A., Lukasse, M., & Røseth, I. (2025) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-025-00177-3
Evidence based consensus statements for digital tools to address youth mental health literacy
Moss, S. J., Siddiqui, S., Chacon, C. Z., Sriskandarajah, C., Stelfox, M., Gaunce, B., Harley, M., Smith, S., Ahmed, S. B., Birnie, K. A., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-12947-y
Tiase, V. L., Tovar, A., Henning, N., Braga, M., McHugh, K., Xu, L., Bah, H., Yuroff, A., Hess, R., Mann, D., et al. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.83567
A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Response to NOVELA Among Hospice Family Caregivers
Cruz-Oliver, D. M., Blinka, M. D., Milner, G. E., Nelson, K. E., Bugayong, M. T., Durkin, N., Gallo, J. J., Oliver, D. P., & Saylor, M. A. (2025) · American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · doi:10.1177/10499091251371149
Implementation research in forensic mental health: a scoping review
Zhao, J., Bumstead, B., Junes, S., Canning, C., & Hilton, N. Z. (2025) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-025-00772-3 · Cited by 2
Vax, S., Farkas, M. D., Mueser, K. T., Drainoni, M., & Russinova, Z. L. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19298459
Vax, S., Farkas, M. D., Russinova, Z. L., Mueser, K. T., & Drainoni, M. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14767063
Juckett, L., Bernard, K. P., & Thomas, K. S. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24585921
Lovero, K. L., Kemp, C. G., Wagenaar, B. H., Giusto, A. M., Greene, M. C., Powell, B. J., & Proctor, E. K. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24465181
Self-citationWills, A., Krassikova, A., Keatings, M., Escrig-Piñol, A., Bethell, J., & McGilton, K. S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26595143
Quinlan-Davidson, M., Dixon, M., Chinnery, G. L., Hawke, L. D., Iyer, S., Moxness, K., Prebeg, M., Thabane, L., & Henderson, J. L. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25906506
Vax, S., Farkas, M. D., Mueser, K. T., Drainoni, M., & Russinova, Z. L. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19298465
Louie, E., Barrett, E. L., Baillie, A., Haber, P., & Morley, K. C. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14168038
Lovero, K. L., Kemp, C. G., Wagenaar, B. H., Giusto, A. M., Greene, M. C., Powell, B. J., & Proctor, E. K. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26634057
Self-citationBello‐Manga, H., Haliru, L., Ahmed, K., Ige, S., Musa, H., Muhammad-Idris, Z. K., Monday, B., Sani, A. M., Bonnet, K. R., Schlundt, D. G., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25001659
Vax, S., Farkas, M. D., Russinova, Z. L., Mueser, K. T., & Drainoni, M. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14767066
Lovero, K. L., Kemp, C. G., Wagenaar, B. H., Giusto, A. M., Greene, M. C., Powell, B. J., & Proctor, E. K. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24465327
Self-citationJuckett, L., Bernard, K. P., & Thomas, K. S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24586138
Vax, S., Farkas, M. D., Mueser, K. T., Drainoni, M., & Russinova, Z. L. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19298468
Louie, E., Barrett, E. L., Baillie, A., Haber, P., & Morley, K. C. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14168044
Wills, A., Krassikova, A., Keatings, M., Escrig-Piñol, A., Bethell, J., & McGilton, K. S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26595140
Additional file 1 of Required sample size to detect mediation in 3-level implementation studies
Williams, N. J., Preacher, K. J., Allison, P. D., Mandell, D. S., & Marcus, S. C. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21258791
Bullock, H. L., Lavis, J. N., Wilson, M. G., Mulvale, G. M., & Miatello, A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14432336
Tiase, V. L., Tovar, A., Henning, N., BRAGA, M. A., McHugh, K., Xu, L., Bah, H., Yuroff, A., Hess, R., Mann, D. M., et al. (2026) · JMIR Nursing · doi:10.2196/83567
Harnessing Implementation Science to Reform Juvenile Services: A Roadmap for Change
Ordorica, C., Wijaya, C., Witzig, J., Patino, V., Angelino, R., Castillo, G., Holly, & Rudd, B. N. (2026) · Journal of Applied Juvenile Justice Services · doi:10.52935/26.15184.1
Moore, J., O'Brien, G., Cullinan, S., & Duffy, J. (2026) · Early Intervention in Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/eip.70147
Richards, S. D., Cardenas‐Aguirre, A., Omotola, A., Muroka, T., Lamia, M., Bhakta, N. H., Malone, S. M., Steffen, K. M., & Agulnik, A. (2026) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-026-00226-5
Synergistic and Scalable: A Review of Integrated Digital and Biological Interventions
Eken, H. N., & Price, R. B. (2026) · FOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.20250048
Livet, M. (2026) · JACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY · doi:10.1002/jac5.70266
Metadata
- Authors
- Powell, B. J., Proctor, E. K., & Glass, J. E.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Powell, Byron J.
- Venue
- Research on Social Work Practice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-10-08
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 192-212
- ISSN
- 1049-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7581
- PMC
- PMC4002057
- OpenAlex
- W2046149030
- Semantic Scholar
- 8f506d0a995878915bf1933974516664dc87746c
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 120
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Research on Social Work Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000448, TL1TR000449, 5p30mh068579-05)
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (F31AA021034)
- National Institute of Mental Health (P30-MH-068579, F31MH098478, T32MH019960)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32DA015035)
- National Center for Research Resources (TL1RR024995, UL1RR024992)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- 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
- implementation strategies, empirically supported treatments, mental health interventions, implementation research, intervention effectiveness, mental health services
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
