ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Policy actors' perspectives on improving federal grants to promote the implementation success of evidence-based behavioral health practices.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo promote high-quality behavioral health service delivery, federal agencies often invest in evidence-informed and evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation through discretionary (i.e., competitive) grants. However, gaps remain in understanding how federal grant mechanisms can lead to large-scale reach (i.e., the extent of EBP integration into service systems). To understand EBP reach through federal grant mechanisms and provide actionable data, we conducted a series of focus groups with relevant federal and state policy actors to gather their perspectives on how to improve federal grants to support EBP implementation.
methodsThis study was informed by ongoing research examining implementation outcomes (i.e., provider-level reach) from federal grants supporting the delivery of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), an EBP to address youth substance use. We conducted four focus groups, two with staff from state agencies who received federal A-CRA grants (n = 12) and two with U.S. federal agency officials responsible for behavioral health grant making (n = 12). We used the policy-adapted EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework, conceptualizing grants as bridging factors between the outer policy context and inner service provision context. We used directed content analysis to characterize participant perspectives on contextual influences of EBP reach, and thematic analyses to identify how to improve federal grants for EBP implementation success (e.g., high levels of reach). We codified themes by EPIS domains and phases, and by policy actors.
resultsWe identified three contextual influences in Bridging Factors, six in the Inner Contexts, nine in the Outer Contexts, and three in Innovation characteristics. We found seven themes about grant improvements spanning all EPIS phases; examples include strengthening collaboration between multilevel actors in the implementation process (specifically federal and state agencies and treatment organizations), and integrating EBPs into insurance billing practices (which also included insurance leadership as a key actor group).
conclusionsTo support large-scale EBP reach, federal funders may consider using implementation strategies that foster greater collaboration between policy actors from multiple sectors and organization levels. This work also demonstrates how implementation science frameworks can be used to study the influence of federal financing initiatives for EBPs in the area of youth behavioral health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.