Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Perspective

Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ·

Volume 5 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2026.1952905

Beyond effectiveness: orienting youth mental health research towards population impact

  • M. E. Loades1,2*corresponding author
  • J. R. Weisz3
  • R. S. Beidas4
  1. 1Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
  2. 2University of Bath Mental Health Research Group (MHRG), Bath, United Kingdom
  3. 3Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States
  4. 4Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Youth mental health problems are a major and growing global challenge. Although effective interventions exist for many common mental health problems, population-level improvements have been limited. This paradox highlights that intervention effectiveness alone is likely insufficient to generate meaningful public health impact. Interventions must also reach young people, be adopted by services and practitioners, be delivered with quality, and be sustained over time. Drawing on implementation science, we argue that youth mental health research should ask not only “Does this intervention work?” but also “Can this intervention generate population-level impact?”. We illustrate how impact considerations can be embedded throughout the intervention lifecycle. First, we discuss designing for reach and adoption, using single-session interventions as an example of scalable approaches aligned with real-world patterns of service use. Second, we highlight the importance of evaluating effectiveness under routine conditions, drawing on a trial of a modular treatment in outpatient child and adolescent clinics as an example of generating externally valid evidence. Third, we emphasise the need to study implementation and sustainment, using examples from national mental health programmes and implementation research initiatives. To reduce the burden of youth mental health problems, implementation, reach, and sustainment must be treated as core objectives if our work is to have population-level impact.

Keywords

Introduction

The growing burden of youth mental health problems is a global concern (1). Numerous interventions for common youth mental health problems have been found effective in clinical trials (2, 3) but these interventions do not reach the vast majority of youths who need help (4, 5). This is a critical challenge for the field. Demonstrating that an intervention is effective is necessary, but it is not sufficient to generate population-level impact. For the purposes of this perspective, we use population-level impact to refer to the extent to which an intervention improves mental health outcomes across a population by being adopted into and delivered with fidelity and quality within routine practice settings, reaching substantial numbers in those settings, and being sustained over time, based on Dodge et al. (6). Implementation science frameworks such as RE-AIM (7) have, for years, stressed that public health impact depends on multiple interacting dimensions, including effectiveness, reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (8). Yet, youth mental health intervention research continues to prioritise efficacy evidence while often treating implementation as a downstream consideration—that is, someone else's job.

If our goal is to reduce the burden of youth mental health problems at scale, we need to move beyond asking “Does this intervention work?” and also ask “Can this intervention generate population-level impact?”. This requires implementation considerations to be embedded throughout the intervention lifecycle, and success should be judged not only by whether interventions improve outcomes for individual participants, but by whether they achieve meaningful population-level improvements for many through broad reach, equitable access, widespread adoption, high-quality implementation, and long-term sustainment (6). Herein, we illustrate how this shift in focus can be operationalised through examples from youth mental health research and practice. In this article, we use the term youth mental health problems to refer primarily to emotional and behavioral difficulties and disorders among children and young people. We do not seek to encompass all issues affecting youth wellbeing or child protection, although these may intersect with mental health and influence implementation.

Designing for reach and adoption

If interventions are to achieve population-level impact, they must be designed for reach and adoption as well as effectiveness. Decisions about how we provide mental health support to youth often prioritise “gold standard” interventions based on efficacy and effectiveness evidence, most commonly multi-session therapies evaluated in controlled trials (9). The treatment protocols in 443 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) specified a mean of 16.54 sessions (SD 14.06) (3). Yet, many youth who access help in real world settings do not complete the full course of treatment available to them (10) and attend for very few sessions (11, 12) with a substantial minority only attending once (13). Designing interventions with these usage patterns in mind could increase reach and adoption and thereby boost population impact. When designing interventions, we should not only ask whether an intervention can work under ideal circumstances, but whether it is likely to be used by young people and providers in the first place, and if so, whether the intervention can work when used as it is most likely to be used in everyday practice (14).

One example of a scalable format for intervention delivery that aligns with real world use patterns and is designed for adoption and reach is the single-session intervention approach (SSI). SSIs are intentionally designed to stand-alone (rather than to presume repeated use or multisession attendance) and have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing mental health symptoms and improving functioning (15), including when offered to youth as self-help (16). Self-help, digitally delivered SSIs are inherently scalable and have been shown to be feasible and acceptable in a range of real-world settings where youth spend time, as in schools in the USA (17, 18), England (19), Kenya (20), Ukraine (21) and Lebanon (22), and with refugee youths displaced from their own country by war (23). Furthermore, they can be offered via widespread public health messaging online and in community settings (24–28), and as well as in physical healthcare settings (29). Key implementation considerations addressed at the formative stages have included (1) how to ensure that youth are empowered to consent for themselves (30, 31) and (2) where and how to let youth know about these interventions, including via social media (32, 33). By contrast, treatment completion for scalable, multisession, self-directed, open-access internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) for anxiety has been low in real-world settings (34), potentially because the multisession format does not align with actual usage patterns: in one large Australia-wide programme, less than a third of registered participants completed three or more of the available 10 sessions, while 21.7% did not complete the first session (34).

Evaluating effectiveness in real-world conditions

Population impact depends on effectiveness in the contexts where interventions are actually delivered (6, 35), and efficacy evidence derived from highly controlled conditions may not accurately reflect outcomes achieved in routine care. An example is a RCT conducted across 10 outpatient clinical service organisations in Massachusetts and Hawaii (36). The intervention was delivered by the existing workforce of 84 clinicians, reflecting typical service conditions. The study compared a modular treatment approach with usual care and standard evidence-based treatments for children aged 7–13 years referred with anxiety, depression, or conduct problems. The modular approach outperformed both comparison conditions on multiple clinical outcomes, including weekly symptom measures and diagnostic outcomes, and participants showed faster rates of improvement. Sessions delivered using the modular approach also contained substantially higher levels of evidence-based content than sessions provided under usual care (83% compared with 8%). Interestingly, evidence-based content was most evident in the standard condition (93%), which was associated with weaker clinical outcomes than the modular condition. This suggests the possibility that extreme fidelity to treatment manual content may not work as well in actual clinical care settings as a more balanced approach that emphasizes evidence-based elements while leaving room for unscripted clinician-youth interactions. In this and many other ways, embedding trials within clinical care can generate interesting hypotheses about ways practitioners may make evidence-based practice both ecologically sensitive and effective.

Alongside effectiveness outcomes, cost and resource requirements for delivery are also important implementation considerations. Even interventions that are relatively simple to deliver may require investment in staff time, training, infrastructure, supervision or ongoing technical support, which may influence whether they are adopted and sustained at scale.

Studying implementation and sustainment at scale

Even when interventions are shown to be effective and achieve widespread adoption, relatively little research is directed towards whether effects are sustained at scale; this limits our understanding of their population-level impact. To bridge this gap, robust outcome evaluation must be embedded within large-scale implementation efforts, including national rollouts. In England, Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs) that provide early help for common mental health problems in the form of brief, low intensity therapies, delivered by trained graduate mental health workers, have been nationally implemented in schools. Routine outcome measurement, using standardised and psychometrically validated tools, is mandated within service specifications to individual level measurement-based care and enable broader service evaluation. However, because data collection is managed at the service level, there are significant inconsistencies in how data are recorded, making it difficult to aggregate data across services (Woods et al., forthcoming). In contrast, NHS Talking Therapies for adults (formerly IAPT) use a centralised system for outcome data, which has enabled large-scale research and service evaluation. Analyses of these routinely collected data have identified variation in access, engagement, and outcomes across services and population groups, informing quality improvement efforts and providing evidence about how evidence-based interventions perform in routine practice at scale (37, 38). A youth specific example of a programme of implementation research work which specifically aimed to evaluate implementation strategies and pathways to the adoption of an evidence based strategy is a programme of work on firearms storage in paediatric health settings in the USA (39).

Hybrid effectiveness–implementation studies could narrow the gap between research and population-level impact by simultaneously generating evidence about both whether interventions work and how they can be delivered effectively in practice (40), and should become the norm rather than the exception in child and adolescent mental health research. Lorente-Catala (41) demonstrate how hybrid studies can simultaneously answer effectiveness and implementation questions in the context of depression in primary care settings in Spain. There are also ongoing randomised controlled trials of brief, scalable treatments for adolescent depression in England including an RCT of an imagery based intervention delivered in schools (42) to inform a future hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial, and a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation RCT of self-help single session interventions as a source of on demand and barrier free support (Loades et al, forthcoming). Both trials seek to explore factors impacting treatment delivery and to report treatment costs alongside effectiveness outcomes.

Importantly, the implementation of youth mental health interventions extends beyond individual services or settings. Youth interact with multiple systems, including schools, primary and specialist healthcare, community organisations and social care, and implementation is also shaped by wider policy, commissioning and funding contexts. Sustaining effective intervention delivery may therefore require coordination across the ecosystem rather than focusing solely on implementation within a single setting (43). This broader systems co-ordination is reflected in approaches such as the US Systems of Care approach (44) and the UK THRIVE Framework, which seeks to organise mental health support around the needs of children, young people and families across different levels of need and service contexts (45).

Discussion

The key take-away is that population impact = real-world effectiveness + reach + adoption + implementation + sustainment. The considerations we have described map onto established implementation outcomes, including adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, costs, feasibility, fidelity, sustainability and penetration (46). To improve mental health at population level, it is necessary, but not sufficient to know what works and how well it works under ideal conditions; we must also understand how, when, where, and for whom interventions work in practice. Rather than viewing implementation as the final stage of a research pathway, we should treat it as a core scientific concern throughout the intervention lifecycle throughout intervention development, evaluation, and scale-up (see Table 1).

Table 1. Implementation priorities across the lifecycle of youth mental health interventions.

Research StagePrimary implementation prioritiesKey implementation considerationsExample questions
Intervention DevelopmentAcceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, equity, usability
EvaluationReach, engagement, fidelity, adoption, cost, effectiveness across contexts
Scale-up and sustainmentPenetration, sustainability, adaptation, workforce capacity, system integration

Implementation in youth mental health also involves considerations that are specific to this population. These include developmental differences in needs and decision-making, and also balancing the involvement of parents and caregivers with increasing youth autonomy and independence. Furthermore, legal issues around age of consent, confidentiality and information sharing, as well as the roles of schools and other youth-serving systems, including child welfare and juvenile justice. These factors can create additional implementation challenges and require coordination across health, education, social care and community settings.

Realising the vision of a deployment-focused model of treatment development (43, 47–49) will require shifts in research culture, funding priorities, training, and evaluation practices (50). An enduring emphasis on effectiveness over a broader range of implementation outcomes, limited implementation science capacity, and structural constraints within youth services all risk slowing progress. Addressing these challenges will require stronger partnerships between researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and young people, alongside greater investment in implementation-focused research. Only through such changes can we ensure that effective interventions translate into meaningful population-level improvements in young people's lives.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. ChatGPT was used sparingly to improve writing flow and concision of particular sentences during the writing process. Any sentences improved by chatGPT were subsequently further edited by the authors. ChatGPT was not used to generate ideas, and the authors take full responsibility for the manuscript

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Paula Diogo, University of Lisbon, Portugal

Reviewed by: Ian Andrew Platt, University of Bolton, United Kingdom

Masaki Kojima, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Japan

Statements

Conflict of interest

Prof. Weisz reports funding from the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A140253), the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH 124965, P50 MH129699-01-A1), the Manton Foundation, the Milton Foundation, and the Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF0633 and TWCF0509), and he is a partner at EBT Support, LLC. He has received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Guilford Press, and PracticeWise. He serves on the scientific advisory board for the AIM Youth Mental Health Foundation. Dr. Beidas receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, Northwestern Medicine, National Psoriasis Foundation, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, West Health Institute, Sanofi, and Pfizer for her research. Dr. Beidas is principal at Implementation Science & Practice, LLC and serves as co-Editor-In-Chief for Implementation Science. She is currently an appointed member of the National Advisory Mental Health Council and serves on the scientific advisory board for AIM Youth Mental Health Foundation, Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She was previously an appointed member of the NASEM study, “Blueprint for a national prevention infrastructure for behavioral health disorders,” served on the scientific and advisory board for Optum Behavioral Health, received consulting fees from United Behavioral Health and OptumLabs, and received royalties from Oxford University Press. All activities are outside of the submitted work.

The remaining author(s) declared that that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. ML is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) for this publication (Advanced Fellowship, 302929; NIHR Mental Health Research Group at the University of Bath, 207583). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

ML: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft. JW: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. RB: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.

References

  1. 1. McGorry PD, Mei C, Dalal N, Alvarez-Jimenez M, Blakemore S-J, Browne V. The lancet psychiatry commission on youth mental health. Lancet Psychiatry. (2024) 11 (9): 731 – 74. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00163-9
  2. 2. Morse I, Mannes J, Pilimatalawwe D, Phippard S, Dos Santos Sousa F, Samuel R. Effectiveness of interventions for anxiety and depression in children and young people: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2026): 1 – 32. doi:10.1007/s00787-026-03064-w
  3. 3. Weisz JR, Kuppens S, Ng MY, Eckshtain D, Ugueto AM, Vaughn-Coaxum R. What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: a multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice. Am Psychol. (2017) 72 (2): 79 – 117. doi:10.1037/a0040360
  4. 4. Bear HA, Edbrooke-Childs J, Norton S, Krause KR, Wolpert M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: outcomes of routine specialist mental health care for young people with depression and/or anxiety. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2020) 59: 810 – 41. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2019.12.002
  5. 5. Edbrooke-Childs J, Rashid A, Ritchie B, Deighton J. Predictors of amounts of child and adolescent mental health service use. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2023) 32: 2335 – 42. doi:10.1007/s00787-022-02063-x
  6. 6. Dodge KA, Prinstein MJ, Evans AC, Ahuvia IL, Alvarez K, Beidas RS. Population mental health science: guiding principles and initial agenda. Am Psychol. (2024) 79: 805 – 23. doi:10.1037/amp0001334
  7. 7. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. (1999) 89 (9): 1322 – 7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
  8. 8. Kwan BM, Brownson RC, Glasgow RE, Morrato EH, Luke DA. Designing for dissemination and sustainability to promote equitable impacts on health. Annu Rev Public Health. (2022) 43 (1): 331 – 53. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052220-112457
  9. 9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Depression in children and young people: Identification and management (NICE Guideline NG134). (2019). Available online at:
  10. 10. Goodyer IM, Reynolds S, Barrett B, Byford S, Dubicka B, Hill J. Cognitive behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy versus a brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder (IMPACT): a multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet Psychiatry. (2017) 4: 109 – 19. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30378-9
  11. 11. DeBar LL, Clarke GN, O'connor E, Nichols GA. Treated prevalence, incidence, and pharmacotherapy of child and adolescent mood disorders in an HMO. Ment Health Serv Res. (2001) 3 (2): 73 – 89. doi:10.1023/A:1011512901714
  12. 12. Harpaz-Rotem I, Leslie D, Rosenheck RA. Treatment retention among children entering a new episode of mental health care. Psychiatr Serv. (2004) 55 (9): 1022 – 8. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.55.9.1022
  13. 13. Edbrooke-Childs J, Hayes D, Lane R, Liverpool S, Jacob J, Deighton J. Association between single session service attendance and clinical characteristics in administrative data. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2021) 26 770 – 82. doi:10.1177/13591045211002609
  14. 14. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance. Br Med J. (2021) 374: n2061. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2061
  15. 15. Schleider JL, Zapata JP, Rapoport A, Wescott A, Ghosh A, Kaveladze B. Single-session interventions for mental health problems and service engagement: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. (2025) 21: 279 – 303. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081423-025033
  16. 16. Ball J, Meiser-Stedman R, Thompson Z, Chiu K. Self-administered single-session interventions for mental health in young people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2026). doi:10.1111/jcpp.70192
  17. 17. Fitzpatrick OM, Schleider JL, Mair P, Carson A, Harisinghani A, Weisz JR. Project SOLVE: randomized, school-based trial of a single-session digital problem-solving intervention for adolescent internalizing symptoms during the coronavirus era. School Ment Health. (2023) 15 (3): 955 – 66. doi:10.1007/s12310-023-09598-7
  18. 18. Steinberg JS, Fitzpatrick OM, Khurana S, Kim MY, Mair P, Schleider JL. Is there a place for cognitive restructuring in brief, self-guided interventions? Randomized controlled trial of a single-session, digital program for adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. (2024): 1 – 21. doi:10.1080/15374416.2024.2384026
  19. 19. Perkins AM, Bowers G, Cassidy J, Meiser-Stedman R, Pass L. An enhanced psychological mindset intervention to promote adolescent wellbeing within educational settings: a feasibility randomized controlled trial. J Clin Psychol. (2021) 77 (4): 946 – 67. doi:10.1002/jclp.23104
  20. 20. Osborn TL, Rodriguez M, Wasil AR, Venturo-Conerly KE, Gan J, Alemu RG. Single-session digital intervention for adolescent depression, anxiety, and well-being: outcomes of a randomized controlled trial with Kenyan adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. (2020) 88 (7): 657 – 68. doi:10.1037/ccp0000505
  21. 21. Steinberg JS, Sun J, Venturo-Conerly KE, Sood G, Mair P, Davydenko O. Randomized trial testing a self-guided digital mental health intervention teaching calming skills for Ukrainian children. Npj Ment Health Res. (2025) 4 (1): 20. doi:10.1038/s44184-025-00134-w
  22. 22. Buchlmayer AG, Snyder LE, Sotomayor I, Smith AC, Jans LK, Schleider JL. Effects of an online growth mindset single-session intervention on hopelessness, self-hate, and perception of control in arabic adolescents. Psi Chi J Psychol Res. (2024) 29 (1): 24 – 34. doi:10.24839/2325-7342.JN29.1.24
  23. 23. Weisz JR, Steinberg JS, Sun J, Mair P, Fitzpatrick OM, Karapata N. Effects of a brief digital problem-solving intervention on depression and anxiety symptoms in Ukrainian children and adolescents displaced by war: a crossover, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Primary Care. (2025) 1 (1): 100001. doi:10.1016/j.lanprc.2025.100001
  24. 24. Shroff A, Roulston C, Fassler J, Dierschke NA, Todd JSP, Ríos-Herrera Á. A digital single-session intervention platform for youth mental health: cultural adaptation, evaluation, and dissemination. JMIR Ment Health. (2023) 10: e43062. doi:10.2196/43062
  25. 25. Schleider JL, Dobias M, Sung J, Mumper E, Mullarkey MC. Acceptability and utility of an open-access, online single-session intervention platform for adolescent mental health. JMIR Ment Health. (2020) 7 (6): e20513. doi:10.2196/20513
  26. 26. Dobias ML, Morris RR, Schleider JL. Single-session interventions embedded within Tumblr: acceptability, feasibility, and utility study. JMIR Form Res. (2022) 6 (7): e39004. doi:10.2196/39004
  27. 27. Loades ME, Perry G, Marshall N. Investigating project care UK, a web-based self-help single-session intervention for youth mental health: program evaluation. JMIR Ment Health. (2025) 12: e72077. doi:10.2196/72077
  28. 28. Ball J, Meiser-Stedman R, Loades M, Perkins A, Bowers G, Pass L. The efficacy of an online self-administered single session intervention to promote growth mindset in adolescents: a randomised controlled trial. JCPP Adv. (2026) 6: e70026. doi:10.1002/jcv2.70026
  29. 29. Ching BCF, Bennett SD, Morant N, Heyman I, Schleider JL, Fifield K. Growth mindset in young people awaiting treatment in a paediatric mental health service: a mixed methods pilot of a digital single-session intervention. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2023) 28 (2): 637 – 53. doi:10.1177/13591045221105193
  30. 30. Loades M, Willis L, Wilson E, Perry G, Luximon M, Chiu CTC. Consenting for themselves: a qualitative study exploring a Gillick competence assessment to enable adolescents to self-consent to low-risk online research. BMJ Open. (2025) 15 (3): e090747. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090747
  31. 31. Schleider JL, Smock A, Ahuvia IL, Walubita T, Rapoport AS, Hill S. State parental consent law and treatment use among adolescents with depression. JAMA Pediatr. (2025) 179: 209. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.5361
  32. 32. Loades ME, Higson-Sweeney N, Teague B, Leas J, Payne-Cook C, Slastikova AV. What do they look for and what do they find? A coproduced qualitative study on young people’s experiences of searching for mental health information online. Psychol Psychothe Theory Res Practice. (2025) 98: 373 – 95. doi:10.1111/papt.12550
  33. 33. Loades ME, Desrochers DM, Edgar S, Luximon M, Sung B. Sharing information about mental health services: to reach adolescents where they are, we need to market early help provision on social media. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2024) 29 (1): 10 – 4. doi:10.1177/13591045231209800
  34. 34. March S, Spence SH, Donovan CL, Kenardy JA. Large-scale dissemination of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for youth anxiety: feasibility and acceptability study. J Med Internet Res. (2018) 20 (7): e234. doi:10.2196/jmir.9211
  35. 35. Beidas RS, Saldana L, Shelton RC. Testing psychosocial interventions in the contexts they are meant to be delivered. J Consult Clin Psychol. (2023) 91 (4): 189 – 91. doi:10.1037/ccp0000797
  36. 36. Weisz JR, Chorpita BF, Palinkas LA, Schoenwald SK, Miranda J, Bearman SK. Testing standard and modular designs for psychotherapy treating depression, anxiety, and conduct problems in youth: a randomized effectiveness trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. (2012) 69 (3): 274 – 82. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.147
  37. 37. Clark DM, Canvin L, Green J, Layard R, Pilling S, Janecka M. Transparency about the outcomes of mental health services (IAPT approach): an analysis of public data. Lancet. (2018) 391 (10121): 679 – 86. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32133-5
  38. 38. Wakefield S, Kellett S, Simmonds-Buckley M, Stockton D, Bradbury A, Delgadillo J. Improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10-years of practice-based evidence. Br J Clin Psychol. (2021) 60: 1 – 37. doi:10.1111/bjc.12259
  39. 39. Beidas RS, Linn KA, Boggs JM, Marcus SC, Hoskins K, Jager-Hyman S. Implementation of a secure firearm storage program in pediatric primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Pediatr. (2024) 178 (11): 1104 – 13. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.3274
  40. 40. Curran GM, Landes SJ, McBain SA, Pyne JM, Smith JD, Fernandez ME. Reflections on 10 years of effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies. Front Health Serv. (2022) 2. doi:10.3389/frhs.2022.1053496
  41. 41. Lorente-Català R, Castro A, Fernández-Martínez S, Varela-Moreno E, Guerrero-Pertiñez G, Forteza-Rey I. Implementation of an internet-based psychological intervention for the treatment of mild depression in primary care: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation approach. BMC Public Health. (2026) 26. doi:10.1186/s12889-026-27573-0
  42. 42. Pile V, Tinch-Taylor R, Carter B, Richardson J, De Rijk L, Leamy M. Evaluating a brief imagery-based intervention for adolescent depression: study protocol for a phase IIB randomised control trial (INDIGO) in secondary schools. Trials. (2025) 26 (1): 236. doi:10.1186/s13063-025-08920-9
  43. 43. Weisz JR, Jensen AL, McLeod BD. Milestones and methods in the development and dissemination of child and adolescent psychotherapies: review, commentary, and a new deployment-focused model. In: Hibbs ED, Jensen PS, editors. Psychosocial Treatments for Child and Adolescent Disorders: Empirically Based Strategies for Clinical Practice. Washington: American Psychological Association (2005). p. 9 – 39.
  44. 44. Miller BD, Blau GM, Christopher OT, Jordan PE. Sustaining and expanding systems of care to provide mental health services for children, youth and families across America. Am J Community Psychol. (2012) 49 (3-4): 566 – 79. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9517-7
  45. 45. Wolpert M, Harris R, Hodges S, Fuggle P, James R, Wiener A. THRIVE Framework for System Change. CAMHS Press (2019).
  46. 46. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2011) 38 (2): 65 – 76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
  47. 47. Weisz JR. Bridging the research-practice divide in youth psychotherapy: the deployment-focused model and transdiagnostic treatment. Verhaltenstherapie. (2015) 25 (2): 129 – 32. doi:10.1159/000430432
  48. 48. Weisz JR. Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents: Evidence-based treatments and Case Examples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2004).
  49. 49. Weisz JR, Ugueto AM, Cheron DM, Herren J Evidence-based youth psychotherapy in the mental health ecosystem. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2013; 42 (2): 274 – 86. doi:10.1080/15374416.2013.764824
  50. 50. McGinty EE, Alegria M, Beidas RS, Braithwaite J, Kola L, Leslie DL. The lancet psychiatry commission: transforming mental health implementation research. Lancet Psychiatry. (2024) 11 (5): 368 – 96. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00040-3

Citation

Loades, M. E., et al. (2026). Beyond effectiveness: orienting youth mental health research towards population impact. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Volume 5. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
5 - 2026

Copyright

© 2026 Loades, Weisz and Beidas.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: M. E. Loades

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchUnderstanding parental trauma in caring for children with down syndrome within LSEN school settingsHabeeb Omoponle Adewuyi, Veronica M. DwarikaOriginal ResearchClinical characteristics and camouflaging behaviors in children and adolescents with late-diagnosed autism spectrum disorder: a retrospective descriptive studyNazlı Burcu Özbaran, Zeynep İrem Şener, Seda Sarı, Gülenay Korkmaz ŞahinStudy ProtocolNurturing environments for shaping trauma-responsive care and recovery: a realist coproduction study protocolSarah Parry, Geoff Wong, Steven Ariss, Sadie Rodell, Elaine Craig, Emma Ford, David Graham, Zarah Eve, Joy Duxbury