Manuscript: Defining Quality Standards for Intensive Home Based Treatment Programs for Youth with Serious Emotional Disorders.

Intensive Home Based Treatment (IHBT) is a critical component of the continuum of community-based behavioral healthcare for youth with serious emotional disorder (SED) and their families. Yet despite being used nationwide at costs of over $100 million annually in some states, a well-vetted, research-based set of quality standards for IHBT has yet to be developed. The current project aimed to define program and practice standards for IHBT, drawing upon literature review, expert interviews, and a systematic Delphi process engaging over 80 participants, including IHBT developers, experts in evidence-based youth mental health, youth and family advocates, IHBT providers, and state policymakers. After two rounds of quantitative and qualitative input, adequate consensus was achieved on 32 IHBT Program Standards and 43 IHBT Practice Standards. These standards hold potential for informing efforts such as development of state regulations, provider contracts, memoranda of agreement, and training and workforce development initiatives. Translation of the quality standards into measurement strategies holds potential for providing a method of continuous quality improvement across multiple levels as well as use in research on IBHT.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Effectiveness of Wraparound Care Coordination for Children and Adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: Wraparound is a common method for coordinating care for children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders (SED), with nearly 100,000 youths served annually in the United States. The current systematic review and meta-analysis estimated effects on youth outcomes (symptoms, functioning, school, juvenile justice, and residential placement) and costs. METHOD: A literature search identified 17 peer-reviewed and gray literature studies meeting criteria, which were coded on characteristics of sample, design, implementation, and outcomes. Random effects modeling was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.0. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges g. Homogeneity of effects were assessed using Q statistics. RESULTS: Medium-sized effects favored Wraparound-enrolled youths for costs (g = 0.391, CI = 0.282-0.500, p < .001), residential outcomes (g = 0.413, CI = 0.176-0.650, p = .001), and school functioning (g = 0.397, CI = 0.106-0.688, p = .007); small effects were found for mental health symptoms (g = 0.358, CI = 0.030-0.687, p = .033) and functioning (g = 0.315, CI = 0.086-0.545, p = .007). Larger effects were found for peer-reviewed studies, quasi-experimental designs, samples with a larger percentage of youths of color, and Wraparound conditions with higher fidelity. CONCLUSION: Results indicate positive effects for Wraparound, especially for maintaining youths with SED in the home and community. However, many studies showed methodological weaknesses, and fidelity measurement was largely absent, suggesting a need for additional research. Nonetheless, the results should aid decisions around resource allocation, referral practices, and system partnerships among child psychiatrists and other behavioral health professionals.

The role of the outer setting in implementation: associations between state demographic, fiscal, and policy factors and use of evidence-based treatments in mental healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Despite consistent recognition of their influence, empirical study of how outer setting factors (e.g., policies, financing, stakeholder relationships) influence public systems' investment in and adoption of evidence-based treatment (EBT) is limited. This study examined associations among unmodifiable (e.g., demographic, economic, political, structural factors) and modifiable (e.g., allocation of resources, social processes, policies, and regulations) outer setting factors and adoption of behavioral health EBT by US states. METHODS: Multilevel models examined relationships between state characteristics, an array of funding and policy variables, and state adoption of behavioral health EBTs for adults and children across years 2002-2012, using data from the National Association for State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute and other sources. RESULTS: Several unmodifiable state factors, including per capita income, controlling political party, and Medicaid expansion, predicted level of state fiscal investments in EBT. By contrast, modifiable factors, such as interagency collaboration and investment in research centers, were more predictive of state policies supportive of EBT. Interestingly, level of adult EBT adoption was associated with state fiscal supports for EBT, while child EBT adoption was predicted more by supportive policies. State per capita debt and direct state operation of services (versus contracting for services) predicted both child and adult EBT adoption. CONCLUSIONS: State-level EBT adoption and associated implementation support is associated with an interpretable array of policy, financing, and oversight factors. Such information expands our knowledge base of the role of the outer setting in implementation and may provide insight into how best to focus efforts to promote EBT for behavioral health disorders.