Policy Makers’ Priorities for Addressing Youth Substance Use and Factors That Influence Priorities
Abstract
Objective:
Understanding public policy makers’ priorities for addressing youth substance use and the factors that influence these priorities can inform the dissemination and implementation of strategies that promote evidence-based decision making. This study characterized the priorities of policy makers in substance use agencies of U.S. states and counties for addressing youth substance use, the factors that influenced these priorities, and the differences in priorities and influences between state and county policy makers.
Methods:
In 2020, a total of 122 substance use agency policy makers from 35 states completed a Web-based survey (response rate=22%). Respondents rated the priority of 14 issues related to youth substance use and the extent to which nine factors influenced these priorities. Data were analyzed as dichotomous and continuous variables and for state and county policy makers together and separately.
Results:
The highest priorities for youth substance use were social determinants of substance use (87%), adverse childhood experiences and childhood trauma (85%), and increasing access to school-based substance use programs (82%). The lowest priorities were increasing access to naloxone for youths (49%), increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder among youths (49%), and deimplementing non-evidence-based youth substance use programs (41%). The factors that most influenced priorities were budget issues (80%) and state legislature (69%), federal (67%), and governor priorities (65%). Issues related to program implementation and deimplementation were significantly higher priorities for state than for county policy makers.
Conclusions:
These findings can inform the tailoring of dissemination and implementation strategies to account for the inner- and outer-setting contexts of substance use agencies.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Addressing the upstream causes of youth substance use, such as social determinants and adverse childhood experiences and childhood trauma, is a high priority for policy makers of substance use agencies.
•
Improving the implementation of evidence-based substance use programs for youths is a high priority for substance use agency policy makers, but deimplementing non-evidence-based substance use programs is a low priority.
•
Budget issues and state legislature, federal, and governors’ priorities have the most influence on the priorities of policy makers of substance use agencies who seek to address youth substance use.
Public substance use agencies of states and counties are integral to the provision of prevention, treatment, and recovery services for adolescents and young adults (hereafter referred to as “youths”) in the United States (1). These agencies are involved with implementation of the approximately $290 million in youth-focused substance use federal programing that is allocated by Congress annually (2) and the $1.8 billion Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program, which funds services for youths and adults (3). As such, officials of public substance use agencies are an important stakeholder group to target dissemination and implementation efforts to increase the reach of youth-focused, evidence-based substance use treatments and prevention programs (4, 5).
Implementation science frameworks suggest that the success of dissemination and implementation strategies could be increased by accounting for the extent to which different youth substance use issues are priorities within these agencies (6, 7). Such priorities are conceptualized as inner-setting determinants in frameworks such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (8) and the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework (9). The impact of dissemination and implementation strategies could also be enhanced by taking into consideration the extent to which different external factors are perceived as influencing agency priorities for youth substance use. Such influences are conceptualized as outer-setting determinants in implementation science frameworks (8–10).
Recent reviews suggest that inner- and outer-setting factors are frequently measured in research conducted in the settings of public substance use and mental health agencies (11, 12). Previous research has also assessed U.S. state legislators’ and city mayors’ priorities for public health and the factors that influence these priorities (13, 14). Although national reports have identified strategies substance use agencies can use to address issues related to youth substance use (15–18), no previous research has assessed the extent to which specific issues are perceived as priorities within substance use agencies or as factors perceived as influencing these priorities.
Understanding public agency officials’ priorities for youth substance use and the factors that influence them is important because doing so can inform the selection and tailoring of dissemination or implementation strategies designed for these agencies (19). For example, a nongovernment organization that conducts training sessions to support the implementation of substance use treatments could develop training materials so that the content, such as specific treatments highlighted or illustrative case studies, is tailored to align with the priorities of substance use agencies. As another example, dissemination materials describing an evidence-based treatment could be tailored to include information about cost-effectiveness if factors related to budget strongly influence priorities or to feature a patient testimonial if patient demand strongly influences priorities (20). In addition to informing the selection and tailoring of dissemination and implementation strategies, a better understanding of the priorities of substance use agencies could help align researchers’ questions with the practice contexts in which public agency officials make decisions.
This study sought to advance the understanding of the inner-setting priorities and outer-setting influences of public substance use agencies. The study aims were to characterize the priorities of U.S. state and county substance use agency officials for addressing youth substance use, describe the factors that influence these priorities, and assess differences in priorities and influences between substance use agency officials at state versus county levels. We compared responses from officials at these two governmental levels because they may work within different contexts influencing their work.
Methods
We created a contact database of senior-level officials of substance use agencies and directors of youth-focused divisions and programs within these agencies. To this end, we reviewed contact lists maintained by the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and conducted Internet searches. We identified these officials at the state level for all 50 U.S. states and, in addition, at the county level in 15 states that had more decentralized public behavioral health systems, identified as such through consultation with the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. The states used to create the county sample frame were geographically diverse in terms of their U.S. Census region. The West included four states (California, Oregon, Utah, and Washington), the Midwest five states (Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin), the South three states (Florida, North Carolina, and Texas), and the Northeast three states (Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania).
A Web-based survey of the state agency officials was conducted between January and March 2020 and of the county agency officials between July and September 2020. The two surveys were identical except for using “state” or “county” language when referring to a respondent’s specific agency. The surveys were approved by the institutional review board at Drexel University. Each agency official was sent a personalized e-mail eight times with a survey link, and telephone follow-up was conducted with state officials to ensure that e-mails were received. Respondents were offered a $20 gift card for survey completion. The survey was sent to 112 state officials with valid e-mail addresses and completed by 42 (response rate=38%) and to 473 county officials with valid e-mail addresses and completed by 80 (response rate=17%). The aggregate sample size was 122, for an aggregate response rate of 21% (N=122 of 585); 35 states had a least one survey respondent.
Measures
The survey presented respondents with a list of 14 youth substance use issues and instructed them to “indicate the extent to which you perceive it as currently being a priority for your agency” on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 indicating “not a priority/beyond scope of agency” and 5 indicating “top priority.” The survey also presented respondents with a list of nine factors and instructed them to “indicate how much influence you think it currently has on your agency’s youth substance use priorities in general.” Possible responses ranged from 1, “no influence” to 5, “major influence.” Similar items have been used to assess factors that influence state legislators’ health priorities (14). The lists of priority issues and influencing factors were informed by a review of the literature on youths’ substance use and then refined through telephone and e-mail correspondence with former state and county behavioral health agency officials. The order of the items in the priority and influencing factor lists were randomized to reduce the risk for order-effect bias (21).
Statistical Analysis
Responses were analyzed as both dichotomous and continuous variables. When dichotomized, responses of 4 or 5 were coded as “priority” and “influences priorities.” Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the proportion of respondents who identified each issue as a priority and each factor as an influence. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each item. State and county official data were analyzed together as well as separately. Chi-square and two-tailed independent sample t tests were used to compare differences in responses between the two samples of state and county officials.
Results
Nonresponse analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in the survey response rate by state U.S. Census region within the state agency sample or county agency sample nor by the political party of the state’s governor. The mean opioid overdose death rate among youths ages 0–24 years per 10,000 population was slightly lower in states of those who responded to the survey than in states of nonrespondents in the state agency sample (mean=3.53 vs. 4.59, respectively, t=5.50, p=0.02), but no significant difference in this rate was observed between respondents and nonrespondents in the county agency sample.
Table 1 and Table 2 show the proportions of agency officials that identified each youth substance use issue as a priority and each factor as an influence on priorities, respectively, stratified by state and county and for both samples pooled together. The two panels in Figure 1 indicate the mean priority ratings and influence ratings among state agency officials and county officials. (Tables showing the means, standard deviations, and t test statistics for the priority and influence ratings are available in an online supplement to this article.)
FIGURE 1. Mean priority and factor of influence scores for youth substance use issues among officials from state and county substance use agencies, 2020a
a ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; OUD, opioid use disorder.
| All (N=122) | State (N=42) | County (N=80) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issue | N | % | N | % | N | % | χ2 | p |
| Addressing the social determinants of youth substance use | 101 | 87 | 36 | 92 | 65 | 84 | 1.43 | .23 |
| Adverse childhood experiences and childhood trauma | 98 | 85 | 31 | 82 | 67 | 86 | .36 | .55 |
| Increasing access to school-based youth substance use disorder prevention or treatment programs | 97 | 82 | 33 | 83 | 64 | 81 | .04 | .84 |
| Impact of parental substance use disorder on youths | 96 | 80 | 34 | 83 | 62 | 79 | .33 | .56 |
| Improving the implementation evidence-based youth substance use disorder treatment or prevention programs | 92 | 79 | 36 | 92 | 56 | 73 | 6.05 | .01 |
| Increasing access to community-based youth substance use disorder prevention or treatment programs | 94 | 79 | 32 | 82 | 62 | 78 | .33 | .57 |
| Increasing access to family-focused youth substance use disorder treatment and prevention or treatment programs | 89 | 76 | 31 | 78 | 58 | 75 | .07 | .79 |
| Coordinating youth substance use disorder services with community-based social services | 89 | 76 | 27 | 68 | 62 | 81 | 2.45 | .12 |
| Preventing opioid deaths among youths | 85 | 73 | 27 | 69 | 58 | 74 | .34 | .56 |
| Increasing or aligning the use of quality measures in youth substance use disorder treatment or prevention programs | 84 | 72 | 32 | 80 | 52 | 68 | 1.76 | .18 |
| Increasing access to harm reduction education for young people | 78 | 66 | 23 | 58 | 55 | 70 | 1.73 | .19 |
| Increasing access to naloxone for youths in communities and schools | 58 | 49 | 22 | 55 | 36 | 46 | .83 | .36 |
| Increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder among youths | 58 | 49 | 17 | 43 | 41 | 52 | .94 | .33 |
| Deimplementing youth substance use disorder treatment or prevention programs that are not evidence based | 47 | 41 | 26 | 65 | 21 | 28 | 15.18 | <.001 |
a
Several percentages are based on slightly different totals because of missing responses. An issue was coded as a priority if rated 4 or 5 on the 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating not a priority or beyond scope of agency and 5 indicating top priority) used in the survey. df=1 for all chi-square tests.
| All (N=122) | State (N=42) | County (N=80) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Influencing factor | N | % | N | % | N | % | χ2 | p |
| Budget issues | 97 | 80 | 32 | 78 | 65 | 81 | .18 | .68 |
| State legislature priorities | 84 | 69 | 34 | 83 | 50 | 63 | 5.33 | .02 |
| Federal government priorities | 81 | 67 | 30 | 73 | 51 | 64 | 1.09 | .30 |
| Governor priorities | 78 | 65 | 33 | 81 | 45 | 56 | 6.95 | <.01 |
| Research evidence | 64 | 53 | 28 | 68 | 36 | 45 | 5.90 | .02 |
| State resident demand | 53 | 44 | 17 | 42 | 36 | 45 | .14 | .71 |
| Provider advocacy organization priorities | 41 | 34 | 14 | 34 | 27 | 34 | .00 | .97 |
| Consumer advocacy organization priorities | 26 | 22 | 8 | 20 | 18 | 23 | .14 | .70 |
| Lawsuits or concerns about litigation | 18 | 15 | 8 | 20 | 10 | 13 | 1.05 | .30 |
a
Several percentages are based on slightly different totals because of missing responses. A factor was coded as an influencing factor if rated 4 or 5 on the 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating no influence and 5 indicating major influence) used in the survey. df=1 for all chi-square tests.
Priorities for Youth Substance Use
The issues most frequently identified as priorities for youth substance use, identified by ≥80% of the sample, were social determinants of youth substance use (87%), adverse childhood experiences or childhood trauma (85%), increasing access to school-based substance use programs (82%), and the impact of parental substance use on youths (80%) (Table 1). Increasing access to community-based youth substance use programs was identified as a priority by 79% of the respondents and was the issue with the highest priority rating (mean= 4.29). The issues least frequently identified as priorities, with <50% of the sample identifying them as such, were increasing access to naloxone for youths (49%), increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder among youths (49%), and deimplementing youth substance use programs that are not evidence based (41%).
As shown in Table 1 and the upper panel of Figure 1, state and county officials had similar perceptions of the extent to which youth substance use issues should be prioritized. The only exceptions to this were for issues explicitly related to program implementation. Compared with the proportion of county officials, a significantly larger proportion of state identified improving the implementation of evidence-based youth substance use programs as a priority (92% vs. 73%, p=0.01), as well as deimplementing youth substance use programs that are not evidence based (65% vs. 28%, p<0.001). Improving the implementation of youth substance use programs received the highest priority score among state officials, significantly higher than among county officials (mean score of 4.67 vs. 3.97, respectively, p<0.001).
Factors That Influence Priorities for Addressing Youth Substance Use
The factors most frequently identified as influencing priorities for addressing youth substance use, identified by >60% of the sample, were budget issues (80%) and state legislature (69%), federal government (67%), and governor priorities (65%) (Table 2). The factors least frequently identified as having influence, with <40% of the sample identifying them as such, were provider advocacy organization priorities (34%), consumer advocacy organization priorities (22%), and lawsuits or concerns about litigation (15%). Only about one-half of respondents (53%) identified research evidence as influencing youth substance use priorities.
As shown in Table 2 and in the lower panel of Figure 1, similar factors influenced the priorities for addressing youth substance use among state and county officials. A significantly larger proportion of state than county officials identified research evidence as influencing their agency’s priorities (68% vs. 45%, p=0.02). A significantly larger proportion of state than county officials identified state legislature priorities (83% vs. 63%, p=0.02) and governor priorities (81% vs. 56%, p=0.008) as influencing agency priorities for addressing youth substance use.
Discussion
Officials at state and county substance use agencies perceived a range of issues to be high priorities for youth substance use, with upstream causes of substance use, such as social determinants and adverse childhood experiences or childhood trauma, most frequently identified as top priorities. Evidence-supported policy recommendations to address these root causes exist (22–25), and our findings suggest that dissemination and implementation strategies that are tailored to include information that helps substance use agency officials address these issues—either directly or through advocating for legislative changes—may be well received. Large proportions of state and county officials also identified improving the implementation of evidence-based youth substance use treatment programs as a priority. This finding indicates that the inner-setting context may be supportive of implementation strategies that help facilitate the delivery of evidence-based, youth-focused treatments in public substance use agencies.
Findings about the issues that are least frequently considered priorities are interesting when considered within the context of youth substance use treatment literature. We particularly note the issues related to opioids. For example, only one-half of respondents identified increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder among youths as a priority. Medication for opioid use disorder among youths is an evidence-based treatment (26) recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (27), yet barriers to obtaining access to medication for opioid use disorder among youths exist (28, 29), and the prevalence of opioid use disorder among youths has been increasing (30). Furthermore, only one-half of respondents identified increasing access to naloxone among youths as a priority, despite naloxone being a recommended evidence-based intervention and its uptake being low (31, 32).
In light of these findings, we conducted a post hoc analysis to assess whether the 2019 youth opioid overdose death rate among youths ages 0–24 years in each respondent’s state was correlated with the respondent’s priority rating of each of the three opioid-specific youth issues. We found no significant correlation in the state agency sample nor in the county agency sample. These findings in our sample of administrative policy makers are in contrast to those in studies of state legislators, which indicate that state opioid overdose death rates are associated with these elected policy makers’ opinions about opioid-related issues (33, 34). Taken together, these results highlight a need to better understand the extent to which opioid-related issues among youths are, or are not, priorities for substance use agency officials.
Only about two-thirds of state agency officials and one-quarter of county officials identified deimplementation of non-evidence-based substance use programs for youths as a priority. Although deimplementation is largely regarded as a priority area among implementation science researchers (35–38), it may be a low priority for substance use agency officials because of insufficient workforce or program capacities to meet the need for youth substance use treatment services in the United States (39, 40). Thus, deimplementing programs might not be a priority because it could exacerbate treatment capacity issues by reducing the supply of available programs. It is also possible that the economic and political costs of deimplementing an entrenched, non-evidence-based program are perceived as exceeding the benefits of deimplementation. Furthermore, it is possible that many respondents did not rate deimplementation of non-evidence-based programs as a high priority because they did not perceive any of their programs to be nonevidence based. All of these possibilities signal a need for future research that explores the determinants of deimplementation in substance use agencies.
The finding that budget issues are perceived as having substantial influence on substance use agency priorities at state and county levels is consistent with those of previous research indicating that information about the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of substance use treatments is of paramount importance to policy makers (41–45). Such economic evidence exists (46, 47), and findings suggest that tailoring dissemination materials to include this information would be beneficial. There could also be a benefit to tailoring dissemination materials to include information about the costs of implementation strategies (48, 49), especially because improving the implementation of evidence-based youth substance use treatment programs was identified as a top agency priority.
The finding that state legislature and governor priorities have major influences on state substance use agencies’ priorities is not surprising given that these agencies are directly accountable to these entities. However, the finding is still important because it supports the idea that elected officials, such as state legislators and governors, are major outer-setting stakeholders who could be targeted by dissemination and implementation efforts (10, 41, 42, 45, 50). Dissemination strategies that affect these elected officials’ perceptions of priorities for youth substance use could then influence the priorities and practices of executive branch officials of substance use agencies. The finding that a moderate proportion (53%) of substance use agency officials perceived research evidence as influencing priorities is consistent with results from previous research (45, 51) and underscores the importance of selecting and tailoring implementation strategies to account for outer-setting contextual factors that influence decision making.
Comparison of survey responses between state and county substance use agency officials revealed more similarities than differences. The most notable difference was that improving the implementation of evidence-based programs and deimplementing non-evidence-based programs were higher priorities among state than among county officials. This finding could reflect county agency officials being more focused on the direct provision of substance use treatments, whereas state agency officials also function in a strategic and planning capacity. However, the difference could also reflect the fact that the state agency survey was fielded immediately before the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the county agency survey was fielded during the pandemic.
Our study had some limitations. The aggregate response rate was moderate for a sample of public agency officials (52). Although respondents and nonrespondents did not differ in terms of the U.S. Census region of their state or the political party of their governor, the opioid overdose death rate among youths was slightly lower in the states of respondents than in states of nonrespondents in the state agency official sample. However, it is unlikely that this difference substantially influenced the representativeness of the results, because we found no association between state opioid overdose death rates among youths and substance use agency officials’ perceptions of opioid-related youth issues as priorities. Nevertheless, it is possible that agency officials who were motivated to complete the survey systematically differed from those who were not motivated in terms of their perceptions of priorities for youth substance use and the factors that influence them.
The survey asked about the relative priority of 14 youth substance use issues and nine factors that could influence these priorities. By no means were these lists exhaustive inventories of all youth substance use issues that may be perceived as priorities or the factors that influence them. The survey was also limited to substance use agency officials, and a much wider range of public sector agencies, such as child welfare, criminal justice, and education, address youth substance use issues (53). It should be emphasized that the study focused on substance use agency officials’ perceptions, and therefore the unit of analysis was the officials of substance use agencies, not the agencies themselves. Last, the survey did not assess the extent to which addressing issues of structural racism were priorities. This was a limitation because structural racism is major social determinant that contributes to racial disparities in substance use and mental disorders (54, 55).
Conclusions
Social determinants of youth substance use, adverse childhood experiences and childhood trauma, increasing access to substance use treatment programs in school and community settings, and the impact of parental substance use on youths were top priorities for substance agency officials. Improving the implementation of evidence-based substance use programs for youths was also perceived as a high priority, especially among state agency officials. However, deimplementing youth substance use treatment programs that are not evidence based was not a high priority at the state or county level. Budget issues and the priorities of state legislatures and governors were factors perceived as having substantial influence on the priorities for addressing youth substance use in public substance use agencies, and research evidence was perceived as having only a moderate influence on these priorities. These survey findings can inform the selection and tailoring of dissemination and implementation strategies to account for the contexts in which officials of public substance use agencies make policy decisions.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202000919.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 98.49 KB
References
1.
Cavanaugh D, Kraft MK, Muck R, et al: Toward an effective treatment system for adolescents with substance use disorders: the role of the states. Child Youth Serv Rev 2011; 33:S16–S22
2.
Adolescent and Young Adult Substance Use: Federal Grants for Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services and for Research, GAO-18-606. Washington, DC, Government Accountability Office, 2018. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-606. Accessed May 19, 2021
3.
Winters KC, Botzet AM, Stinchfield R, et al: Adolescent substance abuse treatment: a review of evidence-based research; in Adolescent Substance Abuse: Evidence-Based Approaches to Prevention and Treatment. Edited by Leukefeld CG, Gullotta TP. Cham, Switzerland, Springer, 2018
4.
Miller WR, Sorensen JL, Selzer JA, et al: Disseminating evidence-based practices in substance abuse treatment: a review with suggestions. J Subst Abuse Treat 2006; 31:25–39
5.
McGovern MP, Saunders EC, Kim E: Substance abuse treatment implementation research. J Subst Abuse Treat 2013; 44:1–3
6.
Nilsen P: Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci 2015; 10:53
7.
Damschroder LJ, Hagedorn HJ: A guiding framework and approach for implementation research in substance use disorders treatment. Psychol Addict Behav 2011; 25:194–205
8.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4:50
9.
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM: Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38:4–23
10.
Raghavan R, Bright CL, Shadoin AL: Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implement Sci 2008; 3:26
11.
Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, et al: Systematic review of the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci 2019; 14:1
12.
McHugh S, Dorsey CN, Mettert K, et al: Measures of outer setting constructs for implementation research: a systematic review and analysis of psychometric quality. Implement Res Prac 2020; 1:1–20. doi:
13.
Godinez Puig L, Lusk K, Glick D, et al: Perceptions of public health priorities and accountability among US mayors. Public Health Rep 2021; 136:161–171
14.
Purtle J, Dodson EA, Brownson RC: Uses of research evidence by state legislators who prioritize behavioral health issues. Psychiatr Serv 2016; 67:1355–1361
15.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Fostering Healthy Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Development in Children and Youth: A National Agenda. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2019. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25201/fostering-healthy-mental-emotional-and-behavioral-development-in-children-and-youth. Accessed May 19, 2021
16.
Substance Misuse Prevention for Young Adults. Pub no PEP19-PL-Guide-1. Rockville, MD, National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy Laboratory, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/pep19-pl-guide-1.pdf
17.
Reaching Youth at Risk for Substance Use and Misuse. Washington, DC, National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, 2021. https://nasadad.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NASADAD-Hilton-EI-resource-guide-3.pdf
18.
Addressing Youth Substance Use at the County Level. Washington, DC, National Association of Counties, 2019. https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/NACo%20Report_Addressing%20Youth%20Substance%20Abuse.pdf
19.
Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, et al: Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res 2017; 44:177–194
20.
Purtle J, Marzalik JS, Halfond RW, et al: Toward the data-driven dissemination of findings from psychological science. Am Psychol 2020; 75:1052–1066
21.
Perreault WD: Controlling order-effect bias. Public Opin Q 1975; 39:544–551
22.
Galea S, Vlahov D: Social determinants and the health of drug users: socioeconomic status, homelessness, and incarceration. Public Health Rep 2002; 117(suppl 1):S135–S145
23.
Wu S, Yan S, Marsiglia FF, et al: Patterns and social determinants of substance use among Arizona youth: a latent class analysis approach. Child Youth Serv Rev 2020; 110:104769. doi:
24.
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Counts NZ, et al: Population-based approaches to mental health: history, strategies, and evidence. Annu Rev Public Health 2020; 41:201–221
25.
Dopp AR, Lantz PM: Moving upstream to improve children’s mental health through community and policy change. Adm Policy Ment Health 2020; 47:779–787
26.
Steele DW, Becker SJ, Danko KJ, et al: Brief behavioral interventions for substance use in adolescents: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2020; 146:e20200351
27.
Committee on Substance Use and Prevention: Medication-assisted treatment of adolescents with opioid use disorders. Pediatrics 2016; 138:e20161893
28.
Hadland SE, Wharam JF, Schuster MA, et al: Trends in receipt of buprenorphine and naltrexone for opioid use disorder among adolescents and young adults, 2001–2014. JAMA Pediatr 2017; 171:747–755
29.
Saloner B, Feder KA, Krawczyk N: Closing the medication-assisted treatment gap for youth with opioid use disorder. JAMA Pediatr 2017; 171:729–731
30.
Gaither JR, Shabanova V, Leventhal JM: US national trends in pediatric deaths from prescription and illicit opioids, 1999–2016. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1:e186558
31.
Chadi N, Hadland SE: Youth access to naloxone: the next frontier? J Adolesc Health 2019; 65:571–572
32.
Jimenez DE, Singer MR, Adesman A: Availability of naloxone in pharmacies and knowledge of pharmacy staff regarding dispensing naloxone to younger adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2019; 65:698–701
33.
Stokes DC, Purtle J, Meisel ZF, et al: State legislators’ divergent social media response to the opioid epidemic from 2014 to 2019: longitudinal topic modeling analysis. J Gen Intern Med (Epub ahead of print, March 29, 2021)
34.
Nelson KL, Purtle J: Factors associated with state legislators’ support for opioid use disorder parity laws. Int J Drug Policy 2020; 82:102792
35.
Norton WE, Chambers DA: Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implement Sci 2020; 15:2
36.
Prasad V, Ioannidis JP: Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci 2014; 9:1
37.
Nilsen P, Ingvarsson S, Hasson H, et al: Theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care: a scoping review of the literature. Implement Res Prac 2020; 1:2633489520953762
38.
McKay VR, Morshed AB, Brownson RC, et al: Letting go: conceptualizing intervention de‐implementation in public health and social service settings. Am J Community Psychol 2018; 62:189–202
39.
Levy S: Youth and the opioid epidemic. Pediatrics 2019; 143:e20182752
40.
Hoge MA, Stuart GW, Morris J, et al: Mental health and addiction workforce development: federal leadership is needed to address the growing crisis. Health Aff 2013; 32:2005–2012
41.
Purtle J, Brownson RC, Proctor EK: Infusing science into politics and policy: the importance of legislators as an audience in mental health policy dissemination research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2017; 44:160–163
42.
Purtle J, Dodson EA, Nelson K, et al: Legislators’ sources of behavioral health research and preferences for dissemination: variations by political party. Psychiatr Serv 2018; 69:1105–1108
43.
Meisel ZF, Mitchell J, Polsky D, et al: Strengthening partnerships between substance use researchers and policy makers to take advantage of a window of opportunity. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2019; 14:12
44.
Purtle J, Lê-Scherban F, Wang X, et al: Audience segmentation to disseminate behavioral health evidence to legislators: an empirical clustering analysis. Implement Sci 2018; 13:121
45.
Purtle J, Nelson KL, Bruns EJ, et al: Dissemination strategies to accelerate the policy impact of children’s mental health services research. Psychiatr Serv 2020; 71:1170–1178
46.
Murphy SM, Polsky D: Economic evaluations of opioid use disorder interventions. Pharmacoeconomics 2016; 34:863–887
47.
French MT, Zavala SK, McCollister KE, et al: Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat 2008; 34:272–281
48.
Saldana L, Chamberlain P, Bradford WD, et al: The cost of implementing new strategies (COINS): a method for mapping implementation resources using the stages of implementation completion. Child Youth Serv Rev 2014; 39:177–182
49.
Hoomans T, Severens JL: Economic evaluation of implementation strategies in health care. Implement Sci 2014; 9:168
50.
Hoagwood KE, Purtle J, Spandorfer J, et al: Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children’s mental health. Am Psychol 2020; 75:1130–1145
51.
Bogenschneider K, Corbett TJ: Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights From Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers. New York, Routledge, 2011
52.
Fisher SH III, Herrick R: Old versus new: the comparative efficiency of mail and internet surveys of state legislators. State Polit Policy Q 2013; 13:147–163
53.
Aarons GA, Brown SA, Hough RL, et al: Prevalence of adolescent substance use disorders across five sectors of care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2001; 40:419–426
54.
Shim RS: Dismantling structural racism in psychiatry: a path to mental health equity. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178:592–598
55.
Anglin DM, Ereshefsky S, Klaunig MJ, et al: From womb to neighborhood: a racial analysis of social determinants of psychosis in the United States. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178:599–610
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 18 December 2020
Revision received: 13 April 2021
Revision received: 19 May 2021
Accepted: 1 June 2021
Published online: 13 August 2021
Published in print: April 01, 2022
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Horwitz has received royalties from a book published by American Psychiatric Association Publishing. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse: P50MH113662-01A1S1
The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50MH113662-01A1S1).Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).