ment by the three institutes, particularly NIMH, which funded 40 of the 69 awards. It is unclear whether young professionals who receive prevention training early in their faculty careers sustain this research support as they advance academically. Data concerning the rate of conversion of K series (career development) prevention awards to R (research) awards are not readily available.
The NIMH, NIDA, and NIAAA prevention research centers mentioned above, as well as the methodology centers discussed in Chapter 10, undoubtedly also fund infrastructural elements important for research training. For example, the NIMH prevention research center at Arizona State University provides a long-standing (20-year) model of training in prevention research. It prepares both predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees in four phases of prevention research: (1) generative research involving theoretical models of development, (2) design of interventions, (3) experimental field trials to test theoretical models, and (4) dissemination or diffusion of interventions to improve mental health and substance use outcomes through work in interdisciplinary teams (Sandler and Chassin, 2002). Training mechanisms include recent directions, such as quantitative methods, crosscultural research, integrative models and multidisciplinary approaches, and longitudinal research. By 2002, the program had had 29 predoctoral and 22 postdoctoral trainees. Of the predoctoral trainees, 16 had finished their doctoral degree and 11 are in tenure-track faculty positions. Of the postdoctoral trainees, 12 are in tenure-track positions and 5 in research positions at medical schools and research centers (Sandler and Chassin, 2002).
In the past, NIMH funded up to 11 institutional training grants in the area of psychiatric epidemiology, a pivotal discipline for prevention program planning. However, these numbers have dwindled in the last several years, with five current programs.23
Needs for prevention research and implementation capacity building have not been formally assessed. Blueprint for Change: Research on Child and Adolescent Mental Health (National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Intervention Development and Deployment, 2001) called for greater research capacity to “take advantage of the promise of interdisciplinary research.” It recommended the creation of Child and Adolescent Interdisciplinary Training Institutes to include basic behavioral and neuroscience, epidemiology, prevention, intervention development, health services, and health economics research,