Utilization of Evidence-based Intervention Criteria in U.S. Federal Grant Funding Announcements for Behavioral Healthcare.
Utilization of Evidence-based Intervention Criteria in U.S. Federal Grant Funding Announcements for Behavioral Healthcare.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/00469580221126295
复制
发表时间：
2022-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Maranda, Michael J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee-Easton, Miranda J.;Magura, Stephen;Maranda, Michael J.
关键词：
最近的美国联邦政府政策要求或建议使用循证干预措施（EBI），因此，重要的是要确定这一优先事项在多大程度上反映在干预资金的实际联邦招标，特别是行为医疗干预。了解这些政策如何纳入联邦机会公告（FOA）的赠款资金可以提高政策的遵守和增加社会使用的循证干预行为医疗保健。2021财政年度酌情赠款（n = 243）的FOA来自Grants.gov网站，涉及44个可能资助行为健康相关领域干预措施的联邦部门、机构和子机构。从SAM.gov网站获得了向包括行为医疗保健在内的州提供的整笔/公式赠款的FOA（n = 17）。在酌情和整笔赠款中，60%的人需要EBI，21%的FOA建议提供资金。FOA使用了许多不同的术语来表示EBI，其中最大的变化发生在整笔赠款中。缺乏足够的阐述或定义的替代EBI术语突出的特点FOA发布的卫生和人类服务部，虽然不那么由司法部和教育部发布。总体而言，43%的FOA参考了网络上的循证计划注册，这些注册是EBI的科学可信来源。除此之外，这些FOA中大多数对EBI术语的阐述都非常简短，通常是特殊的，并且没有经过科学审查。FOA通常遵守联邦政策，要求或鼓励使用EBI申请资金。然而，一个整体模式显示缺乏或不充分阐述的术语表示EBI使申请人难以遵守联邦政策，关于使用EBI的行为医疗保健。
Recent U.S. federal government policy has required or recommended the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), so that it is important to determine the extent to which this priority is reflected in actual federal solicitations for intervention funding, particularly for behavioral healthcare interventions. Understanding how well such policies are incorporated in federal opportunity announcements (FOAs) for grant funding could improve compliance with policy and increase the societal use of evidence-based interventions for behavioral healthcare. FOAs for discretionary grants (n = 243) in fiscal year 2021 were obtained from the Grants.gov website for 44 federal departments, agencies and sub-agencies that were likely to fund interventions in behavioral health-related areas. FOAs for block/formula grants to states that included behavioral healthcare (n = 17) were obtained from the SAM.gov website. Across both discretionary and block grants, EBIs were required in 60% and recommended in 21% of these FOAs for funding. Numerous different terms were used to signify EBIs by the FOAs, with the greatest variation occurring among the block grants. Lack of adequate elaboration or definition of alternative EBI terms prominently characterized FOAs issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, although less so for those issued by the Departments of Justice and Education. Overall, 43% of FOAs referenced evidence-based program registers on the web, which are scientifically credible sources of EBIs. Otherwise, most of the remaining elaborations of EBI terms in these FOAs were quite brief, often idiosyncratic, and not scientifically vetted. The FOAs generally adhered to federal policy requiring or encouraging the use of EBIs for funding requests. However, an overall pattern showing lack or inadequate elaboration of terms signifying EBIs makes it difficult for applicants to comply with federal policies regarding use of EBIs for behavioral healthcare.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lee, Miranda J;Maranda, Michael J;Magura, Stephen;Greenman, Gregory 2nd
通讯作者：
Greenman, Gregory 2nd
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Axford, Nick;Morpeth, Louise;Berry, Vashti
通讯作者：
Berry, Vashti
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Fagan, Abigail A.;Buchanan, Molly
通讯作者：
Buchanan, Molly
影响因子：
1
作者：
Drisko, James W.;Friedman, Anne
通讯作者：
Friedman, Anne
DOI：
10.1606/1044-3894.2459
发表时间：
2005-04-01
影响因子：
0.9
作者：
Kessler, ML;Gira, E;Poertner, J
通讯作者：
Poertner, J