Weisz John R, Ugueto Ana M, Herren Jenny, Afienko Sara R, Rutt Christopher
Harvard University and Judge Baker Children's Center.
Clin Psychol (New York). 2011 Mar;18(1):41-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2010.01233.x.
Combining intervention diffusion with change in clinical practice and public policy is an ambitious agenda. The impressive effort in Hawaii can be instructive, highlighting questions for a science of treatment dissemination. Among these questions, some of the most important are the following: (a) Who should be targeted for change? (e.g., "downstream" clinicians in practice, "upstream" clinicians in training, consumers, "brokers," policy makers, or payers?); (b) What should be disseminated? (e.g., full evidence-based protocols, specific treatment elements or "kernels"?); and (c) Which procedures maximize change? (e.g., what combination and duration of teaching, supervision, consultation, and other support?). Ultimately, change efforts need to assess what aspects of practice were actually altered, what measurable impact the changes had on clinical outcomes, and what changes in practices and outcomes can be sustained over time.
将干预措施的传播与临床实践及公共政策的变革相结合是一项雄心勃勃的议程。夏威夷所付出的令人瞩目的努力具有借鉴意义,凸显了治疗传播科学面临的问题。在这些问题中,一些最为重要的如下:(a) 应该针对谁进行变革?(例如,实际工作中的“下游”临床医生、接受培训的“上游”临床医生、消费者、“中间人”、政策制定者还是支付方?);(b) 应该传播什么?(例如,完整的循证方案、特定的治疗要素或“核心内容”?);以及 (c) 哪些程序能最大限度地推动变革?(例如,教学、监督、咨询及其他支持的何种组合与时长?)最终,变革努力需要评估实践的哪些方面实际发生了改变,这些改变对临床结果产生了何种可衡量的影响,以及实践和结果的哪些改变能够随着时间的推移得以持续。