The review of new evidence 5 years later: SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP)

• Published in: Evaluation and program planning 2015-02, Vol.48, p.117-123
• Main Authors: Jobli, Edessa C., Gardner, Stephen E., Hodgson, Anna B., Essex, Alyson
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Comparative studies; Effectiveness studies; Evidence based; Evidence-based medicine; Mental health; Mental health care; Mental Health Programs; Principals; Program evaluation; Quality of research; Readiness for dissemination; Registration; Research methodology; Review; Substance Abuse; Substance abuse treatment
• ISSN: 0149-7189; 1873-7870
• DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.08.005

•Principals were invited for a second review 5 years after the intervention's inclusion in NREPP.•One in five Principals invited accepted a second review.•Most studies submitted for a second review were new randomized controlled trials.•Most of the submitted dissemination materials reflected expanded capacity.•Feedback indicated that the 5-year interval between reviews is appropriate. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) decided that NREPP should offer a second review option for interventions that have already been reviewed and included in the registry for 5 years. Principals from 135 such interventions were invited to participate in a second review, and an exploratory study of the Principals’ responses to this invitation was conducted. The study used a mixed-method approach, quantitatively describing characteristics of Principals and their interventions and qualitatively summarizing feedback from phone interviews with a convenience sample of Principals participating in a second review. Of the Principals invited, 21% accepted a second review, 24% were interested but unable or not ready to submit materials, and 56% did not accept or did not respond. Mental health treatment interventions were more likely to undergo a second review, and substance abuse treatment interventions were less likely. Similar percentages of interventions undergoing a second review had received funding from the National Institutes of Health (86%) and had been evaluated in a comparative effectiveness research study (79%). Overall ratings for interventions improved in each second review completed. The interviewed Principals perceived potentially lower ratings as the only risk in participating in a second review.