Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies indicate the effectiveness of measurement-based care (MBC), an evidence-based practice, in improving and accelerating positive outcomes for youth receiving behavioral health services. MBC is the routine collection and use of client-reported progress measures to inform shared decision-making and collaborative treatment adjustments and is a relatively feasible and scalable clinical practice, particularly well-suited for under-resourced community mental health settings. However, uptake of MBC remains low, so information on determinants related to MBC practice patterns is needed. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data from N = 80 clinicians who implemented MBC using a measurement feedback system (MFS) were merged to understand and describe determinants of practice over three study phases. Quantitative, latent class analysis identified clinician groups based on participants' ratings of MFS acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and describes similarities/differences between classes in clinician-level characteristics (e.g., age; perceptions of implementation climate; reported MFS use; phase I). Qualitative analyses of clinicians' responses to open-ended questions about their MFS use and feedback about the MFS and implementation supports were conducted separately to understand multi-level barriers and facilitators to MFS implementation (phase II). Mixing occurred during interpretation, examining clinician experiences and opinions across groups to understand the needs of different classes of clinicians, describe class differences, and inform selection of implementation strategies in future research (phase III). RESULTS: We identified two classes of clinicians: "Higher MFS" and "Lower MFS," and found similarities and differences in MFS use across groups. Compared to Lower MFS participants, clinicians in the Higher MFS group reported facilitators at a higher rate. Four determinants of practice were associated with the uptake of MBC and MFS in youth-serving community mental health settings for all clinicians: clarity, appropriateness, and feasibility of the MFS and its measures; clinician knowledge and skills; client preferences and behaviors; and incentives and resources (e.g., time; continuing educational support). Findings also highlighted the need for individual-level implementation strategies to target clinician needs, skills, and perceptions for future MBC and MFS implementation efforts. CONCLUSION: This study has implications for the adoption of evidence-based practices, such as MBC, in the context of community-based mental health services for youth.