Building an Evidence-Informed Service Array: Considering Evidence-Based Programs as Well as Their Practice Elements

Objective: This study empirically examined options for building an evidence-informed service array, comparing strategies to maximize the application of evidence-based treatment literature in a clinical service system. The overall goal was to determine the smallest set of treatments that could serve the largest percentage of clients. Solutions to this problem differ depending on how one defines "treatment." Method: Treatments were conceptualized as (a) programs (integrated treatments produced by specific research laboratories or investigators), and (b) collections of their constituent common procedures, referred to as practice elements. Programs listed by 2 separate government-sanctioned registries were selected to illustrate the effects of "program" conceptualizations, and all available clinical trials testing the programs were analyzed. Practice elements were identified from these same studies and from studies of other treatments that met a standard of evidence but had not been organized into programs on these lists. Relevance mapping methodology was used to identify optimal sets of programs and practice elements. Results: Among a large, diverse clinical population, results identified 11%-22% of youths for whom practice elements provide an evidence-informed treatment option whereas no programs meeting the standard of evidence were available on the registries. Results for the practice elements were able to be matched by a hybrid combination: "best" programs, which were then extended by practice elements. Conclusions: These results demonstrated that there are multiple ways to conceptualize treatments when planning a service array, and these options have significant implications regarding who can be served by treatments supported by evidence.