The occasional case against broad dissemination and implementation: retaining a role for specialty care in the delivery of psychological treatments

Abstract

Mental illness imposes a staggering public health burden in the United States. Although the past 40 years have witnessed tremendous advances in the identification of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in psychological treatments, gaps persist between treatment in experimental settings and services available in the community. In response, considerable attention and large financial commitments have focused in recent years on broad dissemination and implementation efforts designed to improve the quality of psychological services delivered by a variety of generalist practitioners across practice settings. Increasingly, under the influence of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it is envisioned that these generalists will practice in integrated primary care settings. These advances hold enormous potential, and yet, given the tremendous diversity of mental health problems and human suffering, broad dissemination and implementation efforts to generalists alone may not be sufficient to adequately address the burden of mental illness. Some EBPs may prove too complex for universal dissemination, and the time and expense required for quality dissemination and implementation preclude large-scale training in the treatment of low base rate disorders. As dissemination and implementation efforts work to ensure a quality generalist mental health care workforce, herein we highlight the vital need for available specialty care in the delivery of psychological treatments. Given traditional barriers that interfere with the accessibility of specialty care, we propose the transformative potential of a specialty behavioral telehealth care workforce, transacting with the generalist practitioner workforce to collectively ensure the highest quality and timely delivery of needed treatments to affected individuals.