Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Mar 14.
Published in final edited form as: Best Pract Ment Health. 2012 Jun 1;8(1):16–28.

Organizational Barriers to Adopting an Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Community-Based Mental Health Organizations

David A Patterson 1, Silver Wolf (Adelv unegv Waya) 1, Catherine N Dulmus 1
PMCID: PMC3953346  NIHMSID: NIHMS425377  PMID: 24634639

Abstract

This paper examines two factors related to successfully implementing a brief alcohol screening throughout all community-based mental health organizations. The first issue is related to an organization’s internal structures, such as culture and climate that can impede evidenced-based practice implementation. There is literature suggesting that organizational culture and climate affect decisions about whether evidence-based practices are adopted and implemented within health care agencies. Following this literature review on organizational barriers, the history and successes of adopting an alcohol screening and brief intervention are reviewed. Studying, identifying, and understanding the organizational factors associated with the successful dissemination and implementation of best practices throughout community-based mental health organizations would contribute to increasing the likelihood that an alcohol screening and brief intervention are implemented throughout mental health organizations.

Keywords: alcohol screening, community-based mental health organization, evidenced-based practice, organizational culture and climate

Background and Significance

Literature exists indicating that organizational culture and climate affect decisions concerning whether evidence-based practices (EBP) are adopted and implemented within health care agencies (Hemmelgarn, Glisson, & James, 2006). Early diffusion and implementation literature (Nadler & Tushman, 1997; Rogers, 1995; Rousseau, 1997) has indicated that any successful adoption of new technology within an organization is as much a social as a technical formula. Hemmelgarn and colleagues (2006) reported that the social context of an organization can result in different approaches to problem solving, and influence which types of interventions will be selected and how interventions will be put into regular practice. Likewise, the influence of a community-based organization’s social context on the choice, method, and everyday implementation of an intervention could maximize or minimize its overall clinical effectiveness (Aaron, 2005; Hemmelgarn et al, 2006; Hoagwood & Burns, 2005).

There are interesting findings coming from organizational-level studies on internal structures (e.g., culture and climate) that can possibly obstruct or boost EBP implementation within community-based mental health organizations (CBMHOs). CBMHOs are defined as organizations that provide health and human-related services (e.g., bio-psycho-social assessments, counseling, referral services) to individuals and/or families. The interrelated aspect of these organizations is that they are agencies physically residing in a community, reflecting and responding to the emotional, physical, and/or spiritual needs within that specific community.

Although there are many EBPs available to CBMHOs, there is a gap between research on and implementation of these clinical practices. The National Institute of Mental Health presented various recommendations in its report, Bridging Science and Service (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 1999), for increasing the usefulness of research within the real world of community-based practice. The report clearly stated that research designed and carried out in real-world conditions is more relevant to clinicians and more likely to be utilized during clinical practice. It is unfortunate that knowledge about effective health treatments is not reflected in CBMHO settings (NIH, 1999). Identifying and understanding the factors associated with the successful dissemination and implementation of EBPs within CBMHOs would contribute to bridging this research-to-practice gap.

The Gap between Research and Practice

Although there have been efforts to advance EBP into CBMHOs (Aarons & Sawitzky, 2006; Abrahamson, 2001; Burns, 2003; Essock et al., 2003; Glisson, 2002; Goldman et al., 2001; Ringeisen & Hoagwood, 2002), the limited successes of dissemination and poor implementation of efficacious treatments within these organizations are well documented (Hoagwood, Bumas, Kiser, Ringeisen, & Schoenwald, 2001; Weisz & Jensen, 1999). The NIH’s Bridging Science and Service (1999) indicated that clinical effectiveness and utility of any new treatments are just as important as efficacy issues in controlled clinical trials when evaluating treatment strategies.

Barriers Inherent in CBMHOs

Although there could be other reasons for the lack of dissemination and implementation of proven practices throughout community treatment settings, there is emerging literature linking organizational factors with treatment practices (D’Aunno, 2006; D’Aunno & Price, 1985; Hemmelgarn et al., 2006; Knudsen, Roman, Ducharme, & Johnson, 2005; Lamb, Greenlick, & McCarty, 1998; Price, 1997; Price et al., 1991; Read, Kahler, & Stevenson, 2001; Roman & Johnson, 2002; Simpson, 2002). Integrating theory, methods, and data connection activities typically found in behavioral sciences research into organizational services research can lead to vital learning needed to improve the research to practice gaps. Researchers have attempted to study organizational structure and/or characteristics to understand possible barriers when implementing EBP. Although there is a substantial literature on organizational factors related with implementation of new technologies in the business world (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Klien & Sorra, 1996), little research currently exist examining organizational aspects aiding or impeding the implementation of EBP geared toward individuals with alcohol-related problems receiving services outside of the addiction treatment field.

Organizational culture and climate have emerged as probable concerns not only related to client outcomes, but also when attempting to implement new innovative technology into existing CBMHO. This is important because those organizations with less than constructive cultures and climates (e.g., defensive cultures and climates) not only impact quality of client care and outcomes, but they also erect barriers to new service technologies designed to improve overall client health outcomes (Glisson, 1996). Constructive organizations tend to be safe places to try new ideas and practices and support staff’s activities during the implementation of new technologies (Glisson, 1996).

Defining Organizational Culture

Socializing workers in how to behave and go about their work stem from organizational norms and individual attitudes. Theoretical models useful in understanding organizational acculturation include Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, Miner’s (1980) expectancy theories as well as L. R. James, James, and Ashe’s (1990) cognitive processing models. When new workers enter the organization, they are educated by means of direct observation, modeling, along with personal experiences, followed by rewards, punishments, and expected outcomes (Hemmelgarn et al., 2006). According to Hemmelgarn and colleagues (2006), mental representations, or what they referred to as schemas, are developed by workers and aid in gaining meaningful understandings of how organizations work. As a result, workers become acculturated to a set of organizational beliefs and expectations helping to guide their interpretation of organizational stimuli, the decisions they make, and behaviors in which they engage (Hemmelgarn et al., 2006). Basically, culture can be defined as the normative beliefs and united behavioral expectations in an organizational service unit (Cooke & Szumal, 1993).

According to Aarons and Sawitzky (2006), CBMHO’s cultures influence quality and outcomes of health services. Not only does culture impact individual attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), but also services-related outcomes, such as quality and staff turnover (Glisson & James, 2002). Although specific labels for types of organization’s cultures can vary, this study utilizes Cooke and Lafferty’s (1994) terms of ideal or less than ideal (as opposed to best and worst organizations).

Beliefs and expectations (cultural norms) within ideal organizations not only impact adaptation of EBPs, but they have survival value for workers (Hemmelgarn, Glisson, & Dukes, 2001; Schein, 1992). To be specific, these cultural norms support expected behaviors that employees come to depend on during their efforts to survive in an intense environment that demands their constant focus, energy, and emotional resources (Hemmelgarn et al., 2006). Because many CBMHOs constantly operate under daily stresses, dealing with highly emotional situations, the ideal organizational culture supports workers’ survival behaviors, which increases the likelihood that workers will adopt new technologies with limited resistance (Glisson et al., 2008).

Defining an Organisation’s Psychological Climate

The definition of psychological climate is the employee’s, specifically as an individual, perception of the psychological impact of the work environment on his or her own well-being (L. A. James & James, 1989; L. R. James et al., 1990; L. R. James & Jones, 1974). Individuals evaluate what is personally important to their personal welfare and whether aspects of their jobs provide this importance (L. R. James et al., 1990). Edmondson (1999) provided an expansive concept of climate explaining that there is a sense of safety within teams. This sense of safety and confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for disagreeing with that team allows for the perception that one’s environment is non-threatening and safe for errors to be expressed. This safe-work environment allows for a setting in which mistakes can be addressed and solutions can be generated. These indicators underscore a general higher-order evaluation factor on whether work environments are good or bad for one’s own personal well-being (Hemmelgarn et al, 2006).

In the course of interpersonal discussions related to work perceptions and social learning processes, such as modeling (see Bandura, 1977), individuals within an organization can begin to formulate each other’s evaluative structures and subsequent perceptions of their work environment. Although there can be an individualized nature to psychological climate resulting in differences between employees because of social learning and interpersonal interactions within a specific work unit, employees often agree on their perceptions of their work environment (Hemmelgarn et al., 2006).

According to Parker et al. (2003), worker attitudes such as job satisfaction, involvement, and commitment could serve as mediating mechanisms between climate perceptions as well as other distal outcomes related to employee motivation and overall job performance. Because workers behave in harmony with their attitudes, expectations, and beliefs, work environment perceptions evoke outcome expectancies, satisfaction, and identification with one’s job or organization (L. R. James, Hartman, Stebbin, & Jones, 1977). Worker perception is particularly important, influencing the interaction, nature, and tone of the helping relationship (Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998). Any perceived nonsupporting, impersonal, and stressful work environments by the employees results in reflecting insecurities during work interactions. On the other hand, if workers perceive that the organization stands behind them and can be counted on during stressful periods, they are more likely to be persistent and innovative when faced with possible, unexpected problems (Hemmelgarn et al., 2006).

The distinction between psychological and organizational climate is critical in that psychological climate remains a property of the individual worker although the property can be shared with coworkers. According to Glisson and James (2002) and Hemmelgarn et al. (2006), organizational climate exists when psychological climate perceptions are shared among workers within a particular work unit such as the organization, team, or division.

When this agreement exists, aggregated measures of organizational climate can be computed and used as an organizational-level measure of climate (Glisson & James, 2002; Jones & James, 1979; Joyce & Slocum, 1984). Well-established quantitative measures of organizational climate within social and mental health services are readily available (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998; Glisson & James, 2002; Glisson et al., 2008).

Importance of Integrating Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention throughout CBMHOs

In Bien, Miller, and Tonigan’s (1993) review of brief interventions for alcohol problems indicated that the earliest health services research on brief interventions for problem drinkers began in the 1960s, dealing with the problems of facilitating referrals after an emergency room visit. Bien and colleagues provided a comprehensive review of research findings to date on the application of brief interventions for alcohol problems in general health care settings along with methodological strengthens and weaknesses of studies. The researchers concluded with defining common components of effective brief interventions and discussed implications for future research and practice.

In a more recent project from 1994 to 2002 researchers at the University of Connecticut’s Alcohol Research Center (Babor et al., 2006) studied the practicality and effectiveness of a low-cost intervention addressing high-risk drinkers entering managed care clinics. Lessons learned from these studies helped direct the course of this proposed project.

According to National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA; 2004), at-risk drinking and alcohol problems are common throughout the United States. Although much effort and funded services go into treating the alcohol dependent person, findings from the 1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiological Survey (NIAAA, 1998) indicates that high-risk drinkers make up 20 percent of respondents, much higher than the 4 to 5 percent measuring as alcohol dependent. Rehm et al. (2003) determined that heavy drinkers have a greater risk of hypertension, gastrointestinal bleeding, sleep disorders, major depression, hemorrhagic stroke, cirrhosis of the liver, and several cancers. The Institute of Medicine’s (1990) report stated that if alcohol problems are to be significantly reduced, the foremost focus of interventions should be with people who have a mild or moderate alcohol problem.

The Institute of Medicine (1990) also reported that problem drinkers seek some type of consultation within medical health care or other social services more frequently than alcohol specific treatment services. If any alcohol-related services are rendered by these nonspecialists, it may consist mainly of referring the problem drinker to an alcohol specific service. Often times the problem drinker does not follow through with any recommended alcohol-related service (Bien et al., 1993). Chafetz et al. (1962) found that of the twelve-hundred diagnosed alcoholics entering an emergency room and recommended to seek alcohol treatment, less than 5 percent followed through. A later study conducted by Luckie, White, Miller, Icenogle, and Lasoski (1995) found a similar 5 percent referral followed through in a veteran’s health care facility. The introduction of a brief alcohol intervention emphasizing an empathic, respectful, and caring counseling style significantly increased a subsequent appointment (e.g., from 5 percent to 6 percent up to 65 percent to 78 percent; see Chafetz, 1961; Chafetz et al., 1964; Demone, 1963). Bien and colleagues (1993) reported that brief interventions in health care facilities have been tested against untreated controls trials in fourteen nations. Of the dozen studies designed to increase follow-up referrals to alcohol specialists, all but one found significant effects (Bien et al., 1993). According to Holder and Blose (1992), based on current published clinical trials, a brief counseling intervention was among the strongest supported intervention modality in health care settings for alcohol problems as well as the most cost effective.

Lessons Learned from Screening and Brief Intervention Studies and How It Helps in the Development and Implementation of Best Practices

As the result of Bien et al.’s (1993) work and other lessons learned, the researchers concluded that common elements exist among effective brief interventions, they have: (1) significantly more positive effect than no alcohol-related intervention, (2) similar effects as a more extensive intervention, and (3) improved effectiveness on subsequent treatment services. According to Williams et al. (2006) most primary care patients who screen positive for heavy drinking or alcohol use disorders showed some motivational readiness to change, with those who have the most severe symptoms being the most ready.

CBMHOs are in a prime position to screen and intervene on large amounts of individuals seeking some level of health services. Clinical trials have demonstrated that brief alcohol interventions can advance significant, lasting reductions in drinking levels in at-risk drinkers who are not alcohol dependent (Fleming et al., 2002). A number of drinkers evaluated as being alcohol dependent will better accept referral to addiction treatment programs as the result of integrating a screening into standard care (Fleming et al., 2002). Even for patients who do not accept a referral to further alcohol services, repeated alcohol-focused visits with a health provider can lead to significant health improvement (Lieber, Weiss, Groszmann, Paronetto, & Schenker, 2003; Willenbring & Olson, 1999).

Often times heavy drinking goes undetected throughout CBMHOs. The NIAAA developed a clinician’s guide for helping patients who drink too much (NIH, 2005). This guide was created and tested within medical, primary care providers to integrate an alcohol intervention into standard medical care services. Its overall goal was to assist medical professionals who are in prime positions to make a difference, screen for at-risk drinking, and provide a brief intervention. According to Fleming et al. (2002), clinical trials have shown that providing a brief intervention can lead to significant and long lasting reductions in drinking levels in patients who are considered at-risk drinkers. Clinical trials also have demonstrated that repeated alcohol focused brief interventions with a health care provider can lead to significant improvements for dependent drinkers (Willenbring & Olson, 1999). In a recent study of primary care practices, for example, patients with alcohol dependence received the recommended quality of care, including assessment and referral to treatment, only about 10 percent of the time (McGlynn et al., 2003). Clients are likely to be more receptive, open, and ready to change than many service providers expect. According to Miller, Thomas, and Mallin (2006), most patients did not object to being screened for alcohol use by clinicians and were open to hearing advice afterward.

With the evidence being clear that implementing an alcohol screening and brief intervention in health care settings produces widespread positive outcomes (Babor, Aguirre-Molina, Marlatt, & Clayton, 1999; Babor & Higgins-Biddle, 2000; Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Higgins, Gassman, & Gould, 2004; Babor, Higgins-Biddle, Dauser, Higgins, & Burleson, 2005; Babor et al., 2006; Bien et al., 1993; Fleming & Manwell, 1999; Kahan, Wilson, & Becker, 1995), many of these studies discussed organizational barriers as the next prime area of study. Babor et al. (2005) stated that “… implementation of both screening and brief intervention was associated with organizational factors and provider characteristics” (p. 367). Although provider training and orientation has been reported as being possible barriers, Roche, Horham, and Richmond (2002) emphasized a major paradigm shift away from training obstacles to factors encapsulating organizational structures.

Conclusions

Understanding the impact that an organization’s culture and climate have on the successful implementation of clinical interventions and measuring these organizational issues would seem essential before implementing any new intervention into its system. Measuring organizational barriers and responding to those barriers prior to the introduction of new interventions could improve the intervention’s adoption and sustainability rates over time, which would also positively impact the intervention’s effectiveness on client outcomes. Babor et al. (2005) made a strong case for studying organizational factors. The researchers stated that independent of the delivery model, organizational factors are “… significantly associated with implementation success and should not be ignored in the planning and implementation of alcohol screening and brief intervention programs” (p. 367). In 2007, Babor et al. concluded that “… the extent to which a given delivery model is likely to work best within a managed care organization depends on complex provider and organizational characteristics” (p. 21). Of particular interest is Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s April 2007 cutting back report (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2008) indicating that alcohol screening and brief intervention had not been tested outside of research settings and that a large amount of knowledge remains unknown. The health care field needs to move beyond “if” EBP adoption training should be part of the clinical process, and needs to consider measuring how to best implement these proven practices. With the evidence clear that a certain practice works, such as the alcohol-related intervention discussed earlier, the next step is to make sure it is implemented as a standard practice in all CBMHOs with as few barriers as possible. Health care workers cannot assume that just because research has proven that an intervention is effective in research settings it will be easily incorporated into regular practice. There needs to be a concentrated and purposeful effort to implement EBPs into existing CBMHOs, making sure to pay close attention to organizational and any other barriers that may be present.

References

  1. Aaron GA. Measuring provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice: Organizational context and individual differences. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinic of North America. 2005;14:255–271. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2004.04.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aarons GA, Sawitzky AC. Organizational culture and climate and mental health provider attitude toward evidence-based practices. Psychological Services. 2006;3:61–72. doi: 10.1037/1541-1559.3.1.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abrahamson DJ. Treatment efficacy and clinical utility: A guidelines model applied to psychotherapy research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2001;8:176–179. [Google Scholar]
  4. Babor TF, Aguirre-Molina M, Marlatt A, Clayton R. Managing alcohol problems and risky drinking. American Journal of Health Promotion. 1999;14:98–103. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-14.2.98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC. Alcohol screening and brief intervention: Dissemination strategies for medical practice and public health. Addiction. 2000;95:677–686. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.9556773.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle J, Dauser D, Burleson JA, Zarkin GA, Bray J. Brief interventions for at-risk drinking: Patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness in managed care organizations. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2006;41:624–631. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agl078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle J, Dauser D, Higgins P, Burleson J. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care settings: Implementation models and predictors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66:361–368. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Babor TE, Higgins-Biddle JC, Higgins PS, Gassman RA, Gould BE. Training medical providers to conduct alcohol screening and brief interventions. Substance Abuse. 2004;25:17–26. doi: 10.1300/J465v25n01_04. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Babor TE, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA, Grimaldi PL, Ahmed K, Bray J. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT): Toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Substance Abuse. 2007;28:7–30. doi: 10.1300/J465v28n03_03. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bien TH, Miller WR, Tonigan SJ. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: A review. Addiction. 1993;88:315–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb00820.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burns BJ. Children and evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2003;26:955–970. doi: 10.1016/s0193-953x(03)00071-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafetz ME. A procedure for establishing therapeutic contact with the alcoholic. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1961;22:325–328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chafetz ME, Blane HT, Abram HS, Clark E, Golner JH, Hastie EL, McCourt WF. Establishing treatment relations with alcoholics: A supplementary report. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1964;138:390–393. doi: 10.1097/00005053-196404000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chafetz ME, Blane HT, Abram HS, Golner J, Lacy E, McCourt WF, Clark E, Meyers W. Establishing treatment relations with alcoholics. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1962;134:395–409. doi: 10.1097/00005053-196205000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cooke RA, Lafferty JC. Organizational culture inventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistic; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooke RA, Szumal JL. Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organizations: The reliability and validity of the Organizational Culture Inventory. Psychological Reports. 1993;72:1299–1330. [Google Scholar]
  18. D’Aunno TA. The role of organization and management in substance abuse treatment: Review and roadmap. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2006;32:221–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.06.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. D’Aunno TA, Price RH. Organizational adaptation to changing environments: Community mental health and drug abuse services. American Behavioral Scientist. 1985;28:669–683. [Google Scholar]
  20. Demone HW. Experiments in referral to alcoholism clinics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1963;24:495–502. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administration Science Quarterly. 1999;44:350–383. [Google Scholar]
  22. Essock SM, Goldman HH, Van Tosh T, Anthony WA, Appell CR, Bond GR, Drake RE. Evidence-based practice: Setting the context and responding to concerns. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2003;26:919–938. doi: 10.1016/s0193-953x(03)00069-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fleming M, Manwell LB. Brief intervention in primary care settings. Alcohol Research & Health. 1999;23:128–137. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fleming MF, Mundt MP, French MT, Manwell LB, Staauffacher EA, Barry KL. Brief physician advice for problem drinkers: Long-term efficacy and cost benefit analysis. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research. 2002;26:36–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Frambach RT, Schillewaert N. Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determents and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research. 2002;55:163–176. [Google Scholar]
  26. Glisson C. Judicial and services decisions affecting children in state custody: The limited role of mental health. Social Services Review. 1996;70:257–281. [Google Scholar]
  27. Glisson C. The organizational context of children–s mental health services. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2002;5:233–253. doi: 10.1023/a:1020972906177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Glisson C, Durick M. Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human services organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1988;33:61–81. [Google Scholar]
  29. Glisson C, Hemmelgarn AL. The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s services systems. Child Abuse and Neglect. 1998;22:401–421. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(98)00005-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Glisson C, James LR. The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human services teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002;23:767–794. [Google Scholar]
  31. Glisson C, Landsverk J, Schoenwald S, Kelleher K, Hoagwood KE, Mayberg S, Green P. Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: Implications for research and practice. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2008;35:98–113. doi: 10.1007/s10488-007-0148-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Goldman HH, Ganju V, Drake RE, Gorman P, Hogan M, Hyde PS, Morgan O. Policy implications for implementing evidence-based practices. Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:1591–1597. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.52.12.1591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hemmelgarn AL, Glisson C, Dukes D. Emergency room culture and the emotional support component of family-centered care. Children’s Health Care. 2001;30:93–110. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hemmelgarn AL, Glisson C, James LR. Organizational culture and climate: Implications for services and interventions research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2006;13:73–89. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoagwood K, Burnas BJ, Kiser L, Ringeisen H, Schoenwald S. Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health services. Psychiatric Services. 2001;52:1179–1189. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoagwood KE, Burns BJ. Evidence-based practice, Part II: Effecting change. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinic of North America. 2005;24:xv–xvii. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2004.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Holder HD, Blose JO. The reduction of health care costs associated with alcoholism treatment. Journal of the Studies on Alcohol. 1992;53:293–302. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1992.53.293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Institute of Medicine. Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. James LA, James LR. Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1989;74:739–751. [Google Scholar]
  40. James LR, Hartman A, Stebbin MW, Jones AP. Relationships between psychological climate and VIE model for work motivation. Personnel Psychology. 1977;30:229–254. [Google Scholar]
  41. James LR, James LA, Ashe DK. The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In: Schneider B, editor. Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1990. pp. 40–84. [Google Scholar]
  42. James LR, Jones AP. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin. 1974;81:1096–1112. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jones AP, James LR. Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships on individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1979;23:201–250. [Google Scholar]
  44. Joyce WF, Slocum JW. Collective climate: Agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climate in organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 1984;24:721–742. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kahan M, Wilson L, Becker L. Effectiveness of physician based interventions with problem drinkers: A review. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1995;152:851–859. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Klien KJ, Sorra JS. The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review. 1996;21:1055–1080. [Google Scholar]
  47. Knudsen HK, Roman PM, Ducharme LJ, Johnson JA. Organizational predictors of pharmacological innovation adoption: The case of disulfiram. Journal of Drug Abuse. 2005;5:559–574. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lamb S, Greenlick MR, McCarty D, editors. Bridging the gaps between research and practice: Forging partnerships with community-based drug and alcohol treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lieber CS, Weiss DG, Groszmann R, Paronetto F, Schenker S. For the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 391 Group II: Veterans affairs cooperative study of polyenylphosphatidylcholine in alcoholic liver disease. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2003;27:1765–1772. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000093743.03049.80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Luckie LF, White RE, Miller WR, Icenogle MV, Lasoski MC. Prevalence estimates of alcohol problems in a V.A. outpatient population: AUDIT vs. MAST. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1995;51:422–425. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199505)51:3<422::aid-jclp2270510317>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Kessyey J, Hicks J, DeChristofaro A, Kerr EA. The quality of health care delivery to adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;348:2635–2645. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa022615. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Miller PM, Thomas SE, Mallin R. Patient attitudes toward self-report and biomarker alcohol screening by primary care physicians. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2006;41:306–310. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agl022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Miner JB. Theories of organizational behavior. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  54. Nadler DA, Tushman ML. A diagnostic model for organizational behavior. In: Hackman JR, Lawler EE III, Porter LW, editors. Perspectives on behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997. pp. 85–98. [Google Scholar]
  55. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Drinking in the United States: Main findings from the 1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic survey (Publication No. 99–3519) Bethesda, MD: Author; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  56. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 2001–2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a nationwide survey of 43,093 U.S. adults aged 18 or older. 2004. Unpublished raw data. [Google Scholar]
  57. National Institutes of Health. Bridging science and service: A report by the National Advisory Mental Health Council’s Clinical Treatment and Services Research Workgroup (NIH No. 99–4353) Rockville, MD: Author; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  58. National Institutes of Health. Helping patients who drink too much: A clinician–s guide. 2005 Retrieved from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/CliniciansGuide2005/clinicians_guide.htm.
  59. Parker CP, Baltes BB, Young SA, Huff JW, Altmann RA, Lacost HA, Roberts JE. Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2003;24:389–416. [Google Scholar]
  60. Price RH. What we know and what we actually do: Best practices and their prevalence in substance abuse treatment. In: Egertson JA, Fox DM, Leshner AI, editors. Treating drug abusers effectively. Maiden, MA: Blackwell; 1997. pp. 125–155. [Google Scholar]
  61. Price RH, Burke AC, D’Aunno TA, Klingel DM, McCaughrin WC, Rafferty JH, Vaughn TE. Outpatient drug abuse treatment services 1988: Results of a national survey. In: Pickens RW, Leukefeld CG, Schuster CR, editors. Improving drug abuse treatment. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1991. pp. 63–92. (DHHS Publication No. ADM–91–1754;) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Read JP, Kahler CW, Stevenson JF. Bridging the gap between alcoholism treatment research practice: Identifying what works and why. Professional Psychiatry: Research and Practice. 2001;32:227–238. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rehm J, Room R, Graham K, Monteiro M, Gmel G, Sempos CT. The relationship of average volume of alcohol consumption and patterns of drinking to burden of disease: An overview. Addiction. 2003;98:1209–1228. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Ringeisen H, Hoagwood K. Clinical and research directions for the treatment and delivery of children’s mental health services. In: Marsh DT, Fristad MAE, editors. Handbook of serious emotional disturbance in children and adolescents. New York: Wiley; 2002. pp. 33–55. [Google Scholar]
  65. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Cutting back: Managed care screening and brief intervention for risky drinking. 2008 Retrieved from http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/SBI.final.pdf.
  66. Roche AM, Horham ED, Richmond R. The general practitioners’ role in AOD issues: Overcoming individual, professional and systemic barriers. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2002;21:223–230. doi: 10.1080/0959523021000002679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovation. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  68. Roman PM, Johnson JA. Adoption and implementation of new technologies in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22:1–8. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(02)00241-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Rousseau DM. Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction and motivation: A synthesis of job design research and sociotechnical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1997;19:18–42. [Google Scholar]
  70. Schein EH. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  71. Schneider B, White SS, Paul MC. Linking services climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1998;83:150–163. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Simpson DD. A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22:171–182. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(02)00231-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Weisz JR, Jensen PS. Efficacy and effectiveness of child and adolescent psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Mental Health Services Research. 1999;2:125–157. doi: 10.1023/a:1022321812352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Willenbring ML, Olson DH. A randomized trial of integrated outpatient treatment for medically ill alcoholic men. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1999;159:1946–1952. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.16.1946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Williams EC, Kivlahan DR, Saitz R, Merrill JO, Achtmeyer CE, McCormick KA, Bradley KA. Readiness to change in primary care patients who screened positive for alcohol misuse. Annals of Family Medicine. 2006;4:213–220. doi: 10.1370/afm.542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES