nach oben

Erschienen in:

31.08.2019

Influence of an Implementation Support Intervention on Barriers and Facilitators to Delivery of a Substance Use Prevention Program

verfasst von: Jill S. Cannon, Marylou Gilbert, Patricia Ebener, Patrick S. Malone, Caitlin M. Reardon, Joie Acosta, Matthew Chinman

Erschienen in: Prevention Science | Ausgabe 8/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Implementation support interventions have helped organizations implement programs with quality and obtain intended outcomes. For example, a recent randomized controlled trial called Preparing to Run Effective Programs (PREP) showed that an implementation support intervention called Getting To Outcomes (GTO) improved implementation of an evidence-based substance use prevention program (CHOICE) run in community-based settings. However, more information is needed on how these interventions affect organizational barriers and facilitators of implementation. This paper aims to identify differences in implementation facilitators and barriers in sites conducting a substance use prevention program with and without GTO. PREP is a cluster-randomized controlled trial testing GTO, a two-year implementation support intervention, in Boys & Girls Clubs. The trial compares 15 Boys & Girls Club sites implementing CHOICE (control group), a five-session evidence-based alcohol and drug prevention program, with 14 Boys & Girls Club sites implementing CHOICE supported by GTO (intervention group). All sites received CHOICE training. Intervention sites also received GTO manuals, training, and onsite technical assistance to help practitioners complete implementation best practices specified by GTO (i.e., GTO steps). During the first year, technical assistance providers helped the intervention group adopt, plan, and deliver CHOICE, and then evaluate and make quality improvements to CHOICE implementation using feedback reports summarizing their data. Following the second year of CHOICE and GTO implementation, all sites participated in semi-structured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators to CHOICE implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). This paper assesses the extent to which these facilitators and barriers differed between intervention and control group. Intervention sites had significantly higher average ratings than control sites for two constructs from the CFIR process domain: planning and reflecting and evaluating. At the same time, intervention sites had significantly lower ratings on the culture and available resources constructs. Findings suggest that strong planning, evaluation, and reflection—likely improved with GTO support—can facilitate implementation even in the face of perceptions of a less desirable implementation climate. These findings highlight that implementation support, such as GTO, is likely to help low-resourced community-based organizations improve program delivery through a focus on implementation processes.

Trial Registration

This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02135991 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02135991). The trial was first registered May 12, 2014.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Aarons, G. A., Hoagwood, K., Landsverk, J., Glisson, C., Kelleher, K., & Cafri, G. (2010). Psychometric properties and US national norms of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019188.CrossRefPubMed

Acosta, J., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Paddock, S., Phillips, A., et al. (2013). An intervention to improve program implementation: Findings from a two-year cluster randomized trial of Assets-Getting To Outcomes. Implementation Science, 8, 87.CrossRef

Agresti, A. (2002). Inference for contingency tables. Categorical data analysis, 70–114.

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, B. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57(1), 289–300.

CFIR Research Team (undated). Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs: culture. Center for Clinical Management Research. https://cfirguide.org/constructs/culture/. Accessed 16 July 2019.

Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Getting to Outcomes 2004: Promoting accountability through methods and tools for planning, implementation, and evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Chinman, M., Hunter, S. B., Ebener, P., Paddock, S., Stillman, L., Imm, P., et al. (2008). The Getting To Outcomes demonstration and evaluation: An illustration of the Prevention Support System. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 206–224.CrossRef

Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., & Slaughter, M. E. (2016). Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes(R). Implementation Science, 11(1), 78.CrossRef

Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., & Slaughter, M. E. (2018a). A cluster-randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes’ impact on sexual health outcomes in community-based settings. Prevention Science, 19(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0845-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Cannon, J., D’Amico, E. J., & Acosta, J. (2018b). Testing implementation support for evidence-based programs in community settings: A replication cluster-randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes(R). Implementation Science, 13(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0825-7.CrossRefPubMed

Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences (pp. 541–545). Bethesda (Maryland): National Institutes of Health.

D’Amico, E. J., & Edelen, M. (2007). Pilot test of Project CHOICE: A voluntary after school intervention for middle school youth. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(4), 592–598.CrossRef

D’Amico, E. J., Ellickson, P. L., Wagner, E. F., Turrisi, R., Fromme, K., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., et al. (2005). Developmental considerations for substance use interventions from middle school through college. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 474–483.CrossRef

D’Amico, E. J., Tucker, J. S., Miles, J. N. V., Zhou, A. J., Shih, R. A., & Green, H. D. J. (2012). Preventing alcohol use with a voluntary after school program for middle school students: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of CHOICE. Prevention Science, 13, 415–425.CrossRef

Damschroder, L. J., & Lowery, J. C. (2013). Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implementation Science, 8, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-51.CrossRefPubMed

Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.CrossRef

Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Sperber, N., Robinson, C. H., Fickel, J. J., & Oddone, E. Z. (2017). Implementation evaluation of the Telephone Lifestyle Coaching (TLC) program: Organizational factors associated with successful implementation. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 7(2), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0424-6.CrossRefPubMed

Dedoose Version 8.0.42 (2016). Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data www.dedoose.com.

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.CrossRef

Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C. L., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A., Simons-Rudolph, A., et al. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prevention Science, 4(1), 1–14.CrossRef

Glasgow, R., Vinson, C., Chambers, D., Khoury, M., Kaplan, R., & Hunter, C. (2012). National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: Current and future directions. American Journal of Public Health, 102(7), 1274–1281.CrossRef

Hallfors, D., & Godette, D. (2002). Will the ‘principles of effectiveness’ improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Education Research, 17(4), 461–470.CrossRef

Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., Fagan, A. A., et al. (2009). Results of a type 2 translational research trial to prevent adolescent drug use and delinquency: A test of Communities That Care. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163(9), 789–798.CrossRef

Helfrich, C. D., Kohn, M. J., Stapleton, A., Allen, C. L., Hammerback, K. E., Chan, K. C. G., et al. (2018). Readiness to change over time: Change commitment and change efficacy in a workplace health-promotion trial. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00110.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2017). In The University of Michigan (Ed.), Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2016: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

Kirk, M. A., Kelley, C., Yankey, N., Birken, S. A., Abadie, B., & Damschroder, L. (2016). A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implementation Science, 11(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z.CrossRefPubMed

Kumar, R., O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., & Laetz, V. B. (2013). Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use prevention programs in U.S. schools: A descriptive summary. Prevention Science, 14(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0340-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Livet, M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Organizational functioning: Facilitating effective interventions and increasing the odds of programming success. In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation in practice (pp. 123–154). New York, NY: Guilford.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Ringwalt, C., Hanley, S., Vincus, A. A., Ennett, S. T., Rohrbach, L. A., & Bowling, J. M. (2008). The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in the nation’s high schools. Journal of Primary Prevention, 29(6), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-008-0158-4.CrossRefPubMed

Ringwalt, C., Vincus, A. A., Hanley, S., Ennett, S. T., Bowling, J. M., & Rohrbach, L. A. (2009). The prevalence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools in 2005. Prevention Science, 10(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0112-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Scaccia, J. P., Cook, B. S., Lamont, A., Wandersman, A., Castellow, J., Katz, J., et al. (2015). A practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R=MC². Journal of Community Psychology, 43(4), 484–501.CrossRef

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Clair, S., & Feinberg, M. (2007). Substance-use outcomes at 18 months past baseline: The PROSPER Community-University Partnership Trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 395–402.CrossRef

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Facing addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s report on alcohol, drugs, and health (Vol. 6). Washington, DC: HHS.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Influence of an Implementation Support Intervention on Barriers and Facilitators to Delivery of a Substance Use Prevention Program
verfasst von: Jill S. Cannon
Marylou Gilbert
Patricia Ebener
Patrick S. Malone
Caitlin M. Reardon
Joie Acosta
Matthew Chinman
Publikationsdatum: 31.08.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Prevention Science / Ausgabe 8/2019
Print ISSN: 1389-4986
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6695
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01037-x

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Trial Registration

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2019

Comprehensive Cost Analysis of First Step Next for Preschoolers with Disruptive Behavior Disorder: Using Real-World Intervention Data to Estimate Costs at Scale

Commentary on Scaling-Up Evidence-Based Interventions in Public Systems

Does the Fast Track Intervention Prevent Later Psychosis Symptoms?

Commentary on Scaling-up Evidence-based Interventions in US Public Systems to Prevent Behavioral Health Problems

Addressing Maternal Depression, Substance Use, and Intimate Partner Violence in Home Visiting: a Quasi-Experimental Pilot Test of a Screen-and-Refer Approach

Role of Organizational Support on Implementation of an Environmental Change Intervention to Improve Child Fruit and Vegetable Intake: a Randomized Cross-Over Design