Are therapists likely to use a new empirically supported treatment if required?

Summary

There continues to be a movement to address the gap between empirically supported treatment research and social services practice. While the general social services field values services based in science, many therapists’ practices are not grounded in and directed by empirical evidence. This study was a secondary analysis of data collected from 17 (N = 17) social service organizations. The final sample consisted of 440 frontline therapists.

Findings

We find that about one-third (32.7%) of therapists are reluctant to use a new intervention if required by their state, agency, or supervisor. These reluctant empirically supported treatment users had higher levels of field experience (aOR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.00, 1.05, p = .002) and more years at their present job (aOR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.09, p = .001). We also find an association between race (white versus nonwhite) and the likelihood of being reluctant to using empirically supported treatments, with nonwhites being more likely to be reluctant to use empirically supported treatments (aOR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.00, 2.95, p = .001).

Applications

Outcomes indicate that there is a cohort of frontline clinical therapists who are reluctant to use new, empirically supported interventions even if mandated to do so. Organizational leaders may need to consider barriers such as therapist demographics (e.g. years in the field or at the agency), client demographics (e.g. race/ethnicity concordance), and the perceived level of cultural appropriateness of empirically supported treatments by therapists when determining strategies to achieve increased use of empirically supported treatments.