Observational measure of implementation progress in community based settings: the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC)

Patricia Chamberlain, C Hendricks Brown, Lisa Saldana, Patricia Chamberlain, C Hendricks Brown, Lisa Saldana

Abstract

Background: An increasingly large body of research is focused on designing and testing strategies to improve knowledge about how to embed evidence-based programs (EBP) into community settings. Development of strategies for overcoming barriers and increasing the effectiveness and pace of implementation is a high priority. Yet, there are few research tools that measure the implementation process itself. The Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC) is an observation-based measure that is used to track the time to achievement of key implementation milestones in an EBP being implemented in 51 counties in 53 sites (two counties have two sites) in two states in the United States.

Methods: The SIC was developed in the context of a randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of two implementation strategies: community development teams (experimental condition) and individualized implementation (control condition). Fifty-one counties were randomized to experimental or control conditions for implementation of multidimensional treatment foster care (MTFC), an alternative to group/residential care placement for children and adolescents. Progress through eight implementation stages was tracked by noting dates of completion of specific activities in each stage. Activities were tailored to the strategies for implementing the specific EBP.

Results: Preliminary data showed that several counties ceased progress during pre-implementation and that there was a high degree of variability among sites in the duration scores per stage and on the proportion of activities that were completed in each stage. Progress through activities and stages for three example counties is shown.

Conclusions: By assessing the attainment time of each stage and the proportion of activities completed, the SIC measure can be used to track and compare the effectiveness of various implementation strategies. Data from the SIC will provide sites with relevant information on the time and resources needed to implement MTFC during various phases of implementation. With some modifications, the SIC could be appropriate for use in evaluating implementation strategies in head-to-head randomized implementation trials and as a monitoring tool for rolling out other EBPs.

References

    1. Pringle B, Chambers D, Wang PS. Toward enough of the best for all: Research to transform the efficacy, quality, and reach of mental health care for youth. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010;37:191–196.
    1. O'Connell, Boat T, Warner E. Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: progress and possibilities. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 2009. Retrieved from.
    1. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:65–76.
    1. Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE, Smith DH. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34:228–243.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Imp Sci. 2009;4:50.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581–629.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J of Public Health. 1999;89:1322–1327.
    1. Palinkas LA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J. Mixed Method Designs in Implementation Research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;62:255–263.
    1. Mansenich L. Evidence-based practices in mental health services for foster youth. Sacramento, CA: California Institute for Mental Health; 2002.
    1. Fixsen DL, Blase KA, Horner RH, Sugai G. Developing the capacity for scaling up the effective use of evidence-based programs in state departments of education. Chapel Hill, NC: State Implementation of Scaling-up Evidence-based Practices (SISEP) Center; 2009.
    1. Mendel P, Meredith LS, Schoenbaum M, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB. Interventions in organizational and community context: A framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008;35:21–37.
    1. Hales B, Terblanche M, Fowler R, Sibbald W. Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care. Int J for Quality in Health Care. 2008;20:22–30.
    1. Chamberlain P. In: Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. S. Schoenwald and S. Henggeler, editor. Vol. 10. Moving evidence-based treatments from the laboratory into clinical practice; 2003. The Oregon multidimensional treatment foster care model: Features, outcomes, and progress in dissemination; pp. 303–312. (2003)
    1. Chamberlain P, Leve LD, DeGarmo DS. Multidimensional treatment foster care for girls in the juvenile justice system: 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. J Consult Clin Psych. 2007;75:187–193.
    1. Leve LD, Chamberlain P. A randomized evaluation of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: Effects on school attendance and homework completion in juvenile justice girls. Res Social Work Prac. 2007;17:657–663.
    1. Chamberlain P, Reid J. Differences in risk factors and adjustment for male and female delinquents in treatment foster care. J Child and Fam Stud. 1998;3:23–39.
    1. Bergh AM, Arsalo I, Malan AF, Patrick M, Pattinson RC, Phillips N. Measuring implementation progress in kangaroo mother care. Acta Pediatrica. 2005;94:1102–1108.
    1. Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010;38:4–23.
    1. Sonsa T, Marsenich L. Community Development Team Model. Supporting the Model Adherent Implementation of Programs and Practices [report] Sacramento, CA: The California Institute for Mental Health, October; 2006. pp. 2–40.
    1. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 4. New York: Free Press;
    1. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. 2. New York: Wiley; 2002.
    1. Wang W, Saldana L, Brown CH, Chamberlain P. Factors that influenced county system leaders to implement an evidence-based program: A baseline survey within a randomized controlled trial. Imp Sci. 2010;5:72.
    1. DeAngelis T. Getting research into the real world. Monitor on Psych. 2010;41:60.
    1. Saldana L, Chamberlain P, Wang W, Brown CH. Predicting program start-up using the stages of implementation measure. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011. online first:.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다