Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Douglas reported receipt of compensation related to the Peabody Treatment Progress Battery and a financial relationship with Mirah; there is a management plan to ensure that this conflict does not jeopardize the objectivity of her research. No other disclosures were reported.

Measurement-based care (MBC) can be defined as the practice of basing clinical care on client data collected throughout treatment. MBC is considered a core component of numerous evidence-based practices (e.g., Beck & Beck, 2011; Klerman, Weissman, Rounsaville, & Chevron, 1984) and has emerging empirical support as an evidence-based framework that can be added to any treatment (Lambert et al., 2003, Trivedi et al., 2007). The observed benefits of MBC are numerous. MBC provides insight into treatment progress, highlights ongoing treatment targets, reduces symptom deterioration, and improves client outcomes (Lambert et al., 2005). Moreover, as a framework to guide treatment, MBC has transtheoretical and transdiagnostic relevance with broad reach across clinical settings. Although MBC has primarily focused on assessing symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety), MBC can also be used to assess valuable information about (a) symptoms, (b) functioning and satisfaction with life, (c) putative mechanisms of change (e.g., readiness to change), and (d) the treatment process (e.g., session feedback, working alliance). This paper provides an overview of the benefits and challenges of MBC implementation when conceptualized as a transtheoretical and transdiagnostic framework for evaluating client therapy progress and outcomes across these four domains. The empirical support for MBC use is briefly reviewed, an adult case example is presented to serve as a guide for successful implementation of MBC in clinical practice, and future directions to maximize MBC utility are discussed.

BackgroundTailored implementation approaches are touted as more likely to support the integration of evidence-based practices. However, to our knowledge, few methodologies for tailoring implementations exist. This manuscript will apply a model-driven, mixed methods approach to a needs assessment to identify the determinants of practice, and pilot a modified conjoint analysis method to generate an implementation blueprint using a case example of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) implementation in a youth residential center.MethodsOur proposed methodology contains five steps to address two goals: (1) identify the determinants of practice and (2) select and match implementation strategies to address the identified determinants (focusing on barriers). Participants in the case example included mental health therapists and operations staff in two programs of Wolverine Human Services. For step 1, the needs assessment, they completed surveys (clinician N = 10; operations staff N = 58; other N = 7) and participated in focus groups (clinician N = 15; operations staff N = 38) guided by the domains of the Framework for Diffusion [1]. For step 2, the research team conducted mixed methods analyses following the QUAN + QUAL structure for the purpose of convergence and expansion in a connecting process, revealing 76 unique barriers. Step 3 consisted of a modified conjoint analysis. For step 3a, agency administrators prioritized the identified barriers according to feasibility and importance. For step 3b, strategies were selected from a published compilation and rated for feasibility and likelihood of impacting CBT fidelity. For step 4, sociometric surveys informed implementation team member selection and a meeting was held to identify officers and clarify goals and responsibilities. For step 5, blueprints for each of pre-implementation, implementation, and sustainment phases were generated.ResultsForty-five unique strategies were prioritized across the 5 years and three phases representing all nine categories.ConclusionsOur novel methodology offers a relatively low burden collaborative approach to generating a plan for implementation that leverages advances in implementation science including measurement, models, strategy compilations, and methods from other fields.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0761-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The goal of the current article is to present the results of a randomized pilot investigation of a brief dynamic psychotherapy compared with treatment-as-usual (TAU) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe depression in the community mental health system. Forty patients seeking services for moderate-to-severe depression in the community mental health system were randomized to 12 weeks of psychotherapy, with either a community therapist trained in brief dynamic psychotherapy or a TAU therapist. Results indicated that blind judges could discriminate the dynamic sessions from the TAU sessions on adherence to dynamic interventions. The results indicate moderate-to-large effect sizes in favor of the dynamic psychotherapy over the TAU therapy in the treatment of depression. The Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24 showed that 50% of patients treated with dynamic therapy moved into a normative range compared with only 29% of patients treated with TAU.