Cited by 299Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationPsychiatric care and mental health services

Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Mental Health Agencies: A Multiple Stakeholder Analysis

Open access
Aarons, Gregory A., Wells, Rebecca S., Zagursky, Karen, Fettes, Danielle L., Palinkas, Lawrence A.·2009·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Objectives. We sought to identify factors believed to facilitate or hinder evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation in public mental health service systems as a step in developing theory to be tested in future studies. Methods. Focusing across levels of an entire large public sector mental health service system for youths, we engaged participants from 6 stakeholder groups: county officials, agency directors, program managers, clinical staff, administrative staff, and consumers. Results. Participants generated 105 unique statements identifying implementation barriers and facilitators. Participants rated each statement on importance and changeability (i.e., the degree to which each barrier or facilitator is considered changeable). Data analyses distilled statements into 14 factors or dimensions. Descriptive analyses suggest that perceptions of importance and changeability varied across stakeholder groups. Conclusions. Implementation of EBP is a complex process. Cross-system–level approaches are needed to bring divergent and convergent perspectives to light. Examples include agency and program directors facilitating EBP implementation by supporting staff, actively sharing information with policymakers and administrators about EBP effectiveness and fit with clients' needs and preferences, and helping clinicians to present and deliver EBPs and address consumer concerns.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2009.161711

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Aarons, Wells, Zagursky, Fettes, & Palinkas (2009) found among multiple stakeholders implementing EBPs in community mental health agencies that funding was endorsed as both the most important and least changeable factor in implementation success.

    “Likewise, Aarons, Wells, Zagursky, Fettes, & Palinkas (2009) found among multiple stakeholders implementing EBPs in community mental health agencies that funding was endorsed as both the most important and least changeable factor in implementation success.”

    From Evidence-Based Mental Health Programs in Schools: Barriers and Facilitators of Successful Implementation (2010) · cites this paper as Aarons, Wells, Zagursky, Fettes, & Palinkas (2009)

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [25]Choi BC, Pang T, Lin V, et al. Can scientists and policy makers work together? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:632–637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [31]Rimmer M, Macneil J, Chenhall R, Langfield-Smith K, Watts L. Reinventing Competitiveness: Achieving Best Practice in Australia. South Melbourne, Australia: Pitman; 1996 [Google Scholar]
  3. [40]Dunham RB, Grube JA, Gardner DG, Pierce JL. The development of an attitude toward change instrument. Presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 1989; Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  4. [56]Davison ML. Multidimensional Scaling. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1983 [Google Scholar]
  5. [64]Aarons GA, Sommerfeld DH. Transformational leadership, team climate for innovation, and staff attitudes toward adopting evidence-based practice. Presented as a talk at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management; August 2008; Anaheim, CA [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aarons, G. A., Wells, R. S., Zagursky, K., Fettes, D. L., & Palinkas, L. A.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2009-11
Volume
99
Issue
11
Pages
2087-2095
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W1965434963
Cited by
299
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 14
FWCI
21.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R03MH070703, R01MH072961)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
evidence-based practice, implementation barriers and facilitators, community mental health services, youth mental health, stakeholder perspectives, county officials, agency directors, program managers, clinical staff, office workers, consumers, implementation theory
MeSH terms
Adolescent, California, Community Mental Health Services, Community-Institutional Relations, Community Participation, Female, Humans, Male, Organizational Case Studies, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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