Panel Discussion 33 - The Needed Case Against Innovation in Mental Health Research: Doing More with What We Already Know

Clinical science shows a significant bias toward “innovative” research—developing new interventions, identifying novel markers of psychopathology, and leveraging state-of-the-art methodologies. Many of these research agendas (e.g., biomarkers of mental disorders, genomics) have had limited, if any, immediate impact on day-to-day clinical practice and the well-being of individuals with mental health problems. As such, despite all the advances that have been made in clinical science over the past decades, the prevalence and burden of mental health disorders remain essentially unchanged. Thus, old calls to “reboot” clinical science to be more responsive to these immediate needs are just as relevant as when first made (Kazdin & Blasé, 2011).
In direct response to this year’s theme of Innovation to Advance CBT, this panel seeks to critically examine and, in some cases, even push back against the notion that “innovation” in clinical research is the most effective or preferred path to create a more impactful, scalable, and equitable mental health care system. Instead, panelists will discuss research agendas that could have more immediate potential to improve outcomes. These approaches focus on maximizing what is currently known in the field and advancing best practices and interventions. Topics addressed in this panel will include 1) de-emphasizing “active ingredients” research in favor of a dissemination and implementation approach; 2) “revolutionizing care delivery” via digital technologies by first resolving current barriers related to acceptance, engagement, workflows, and reimbursement; 3) determining the cost-benefit of treatment personalization approaches versus generic and “good enough” interventions that if widely disseminated could have broad population health impact; and 4) better understanding the needs of the current mental health workforce and providing adequate supports rather than layering more and more “innovations” at the system level. Discussants will also share their experiences pursuing these research programs while still appealing to a field and funding environment that prioritize “innovation” over real-world impact.