Protocol for a hybrid type 3 cluster randomized trial of a technical assistance system supporting coalitions and evidence-based drug prevention programs

Louis D Brown, Sarah M Chilenski, Rebecca Wells, Eric C Jones, Janet A Welsh, Jochebed G Gayles, Maria E Fernandez, Damon E Jones, Kimberly A Mallett, Mark E Feinberg, Louis D Brown, Sarah M Chilenski, Rebecca Wells, Eric C Jones, Janet A Welsh, Jochebed G Gayles, Maria E Fernandez, Damon E Jones, Kimberly A Mallett, Mark E Feinberg

Abstract

Background: Over 5000 community anti-drug coalitions operating in the USA serve as a cornerstone of federal drug prevention. These coalitions, however, have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing substance use only when they use technical assistance (TA) and implement evidence-based programs (EBPs). The absence of TA and EBP implementation by coalitions is a key research-to-practice gap. The Coalition Check-Up TA system is designed to fill this gap by supporting community coalition implementation of EBPs. Existing TA models for evidence-based coalition approaches are resource intensive and coalition model specific. The Coalition Check-Up is a lower cost strategy that works with a variety of types of coalitions to support sustainable implementation of EBPs. This study protocol describes a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial applying Wandersman's Interactive Systems Framework to test the effects of the Coalition Check-Up on coalition EBP implementation capacity and outcomes. The Interactive Systems Framework outlines how the prevention support system-especially TA-bolsters EBP dissemination and implementation.

Methods: Using a cluster randomized controlled design, this trial will test the overall effectiveness of the Coalition Check-Up, including how it contributes to EBP implementation and prevention of youth substance use. The first aim is to estimate the impact of the Coalition Check-Up on coalitions' capacity to do their work. We will recruit 68 anti-drug coalitions for random assignment to the Coalition Check-Up or "TA as usual" condition. We will evaluate whether the Coalition Check-Up improves coalition capacity using measures of coalition member responses about team processes, coalition network composition, and collaborative structure. Our second aim is to estimate the impact of the Coalition Check-Up on implementation of EBPs, and our third aim is to estimate the impact of the Coalition Check-Up on youth substance use.

Discussion: This project will clarify how the Coalition Check-Up, a scalable approach to TA due to its low cost, affects coalition capacity to support EBP implementation. Analyses also provide insight into causal pathways from the prevention support system to the prevention delivery system outlined by the Interactive Systems Framework. Results will build the evidence-base for how to support community coalitions' sustainable implementation of evidence-based prevention programs and policies.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT04592120 . Registered on October 19, 2020.

Keywords: Adolescent behavior; Community coalitions; Implementation support; Interactive Systems Framework; Prevention; Risk reduction behavior; Substance-related disorders; Sustainability; Technical assistance.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Coalition Check-Up Conceptual Framework (adapted from Interactive Systems Framework)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT diagram

References

    1. CADCA. Building drug free communities Alexandria, VA2016 [updated 2/10/16. Available from: ].
    1. Feinberg ME. Community epidemiology of risk and adolescent substance use: practical questions for enhancing prevention. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(3):457–468. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300496.
    1. Office of National Drug Control Policy . National drug control strategy. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy; 2012.
    1. Butterfoss FD. Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
    1. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3-4):327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.
    1. Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, Stillman L, et al. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;37:171–181. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z.
    1. Spoth R, Greenberg M, Bierman K, Redmond C. PROSPER community-university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prev Sci. 2004;5(1):31–39. doi: 10.1023/B:PREV.0000013979.52796.8b.
    1. Hawkins J, Catalano R, Arthur M, Egan E, Brown E, Abbott R, et al. Testing Communities That Care: the rationale, design and behavioral baseline equivalence of the Community Youth Development Study. Prev Sci. 2008;9(3):178–190. doi: 10.1007/s11121-008-0092-y.
    1. Hawkins JD, Oesterle S, Brown EC, Abbott RD, Catalano RF. Youth problem behaviors 8 years after implementing the Communities That Care prevention system A community-randomized trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(2):122–129. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4009.
    1. Spoth R, Redmond C, Shin C, Greenberg M, Feinberg M, Schainker L. PROSPER community-university partnership delivery system effects on substance misuse through 6 1/2 years past baseline from a cluster randomized controlled intervention trial (vol 56, pg 190, 2013) Prev Med. 2014;69:36. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.07.011.
    1. Rohrbach LA, Grana R, Sussman S, Valente TW. Type II translation: Transporting prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29(3):302–333. doi: 10.1177/0163278706290408.
    1. Cameron G, Karabanow J, Laurendeau M, Chamberlan C. Program implementation and diffusion. In: Prilleltensky I, Nelson G, Peirson L, editors. Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment: Fundamentals for thinking and action. Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press; 2001. pp. 318–348.
    1. Chilenski SM, Perkins DF, Olson J, Hoffman L, Feinberg ME, Greenberg M, et al. The power of a collaborative relationship between technical assistance providers and community prevention teams: a correlational and longitudinal study. Eval Prog Plann. 2016;54:19–29. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.10.002.
    1. Fagan AA, Hawkins DJ, Catalano RF, Farrington DP. Communities that Care: Building community engagement and capacity to prevent youth behavior problems. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.
    1. Chilenski SM, Welsh JA, Perkins DF, Hoffman L. Going the distance: technical assistance to community prevention coalitions and its impact on prevention coalitions over time. Practice and Research: Consulting Psychology Journal; 2020.
    1. UW Center for Communities That Care. Communities That Care PLUS: Prevention science + digital tools + support = successful kids 2018. Available from: .
    1. Butterfoss FD. The coalition technical assistance and training framework: Helping community coalitions help themselves. Health Promot Pract. 2004;5(2):118–126. doi: 10.1177/1524839903257262.
    1. Hunter SB, Chinman M, Ebener P, Imm P, Wandersman A, Ryan GW. Technical assistance as a prevention capacity-building tool: a demonstration using the Getting to Outcomes® framework. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36(5):810–828. doi: 10.1177/1090198108329999.
    1. Mihalic S, Fagan A, Irwin K, Ballard D, Elliott D. Blueprints for violence prevention. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. University of Colorado—Boulder, Office of Justice Programs OoJJaDP; 2004.
    1. Feinberg ME, Gomez B, Puddy RW, Greenberg MT. Evaluation and community prevention coalitions: Validation of an integrated web-based/technical assistance consultant model. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35(1):9–21. doi: 10.1177/1090198105282413.
    1. Brown LD, Feinberg ME, Shapiro VB, Greenberg MT. Reciprocal relations between coalition characteristics and the provision of implementation support. Prev Sci. 2015;16(1):101–109. doi: 10.1007/s11121-013-0447-x.
    1. Feinberg ME, Bontempo DE, Greenberg MT. Predictors and level of sustainability of community prevention coalitions. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(6):495–501. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.030.
    1. Chilenski SM. PROSPER Partnerships Annual Community Team Report: Pennsylvania State University. 2013.
    1. Feinberg ME, Jones D, Greenberg MT, Osgood DW, Bontempo D. Effects of the Communities That Care model in Pennsylvania on change in adolescent risk and problem behaviors. Prev Sci. 2010;11(2):163–171. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0161-x.
    1. Shapiro VB, Hawkins JD, Oesterle S. Building local infrastructure for community adoption of science-based prevention: The role of coalition functioning. Prev Sci. 2015;16(8):1136–1146. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0562-y.
    1. Brown LD, Feinberg ME, Greenberg MT. Determinants of community coalition ability to support evidence-based programs. Prev Sci. 2010;11(3):287–297. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0173-6.
    1. Hays CE, Hays SP, DeVille JO, Mulhall PF. Capacity for effectiveness: The relationship between coalition structure and community impact. Eval Prog Plann. 2000;23(3):373–379. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7189(00)00026-4.
    1. Feinberg ME, Greenberg MT, Osgood DW. Readiness, functioning, and perceived effectiveness of community prevention coalitions: a study of Communities That Care. Am J Community Psychol. 2004;33(3-4):163–176. doi: 10.1023/B:AJCP.0000027003.75394.2b.
    1. Hodge LM, Turner KMT, Sanders MR, Filus A. Sustained implementation support scale: validation of a measure of program characteristics and workplace functioning for sustained program implementation. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(3):442–464. doi: 10.1007/s11414-016-9505-z.
    1. Brown LD, Wells R, Jones EC, Chilenski SM. Effects of sectoral diversity on community coalition processes and outcomes. Prev Sci. 2017;18(5):600–609. doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0796-y.
    1. Fujimoto K, Valente TW, Pentz MA. Network structural influences on the adoption of evidence-based prevention in communities. J Commun Psychol. 2009;37(7):830–845. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20333.
    1. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.
    1. Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, et al. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-14.
    1. Miller WR. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.
    1. EPISCenter . EPISCenter quarterly progress report: January 2014. University Park, PA: Evidence-Based Prevention & Intervention Support Center; 2014.
    1. Scaccia JP, Cook BS, Lamont A, Wandersman A, Castellow J, Katz J, et al. A practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R = MC(2) J Community Psychol. 2015;43(4):484–501. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21698.
    1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.
    1. Colquhoun HL, Carroll K, Eva KW, Grimshaw JM, Ivers N, Michie S, et al. Advancing the literature on designing audit and feedback interventions: identifying theory-informed hypotheses. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0646-0.
    1. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–226. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
    1. Hawkins JD, Oesterle S, Brown EC, Arthur MW, Abbott RD, Fagan AA, et al. Results of a type 2 translational research trial to prevent adolescent drug use and delinquency: A test of Communities That Care. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(9):789–798. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.141.
    1. Spoth R, Redmond C, Clair S, Shin C, Greenberg M, Feinberg M. Preventing substance misuse through community-university partnerships: Randomized controlled trial outcomes 4½ years past baseline. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(4):440–447. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.012.
    1. Romano M, Peters L. Understanding the process of motivational interviewing: A review of the relational and technical hypotheses. Psychother Res. 2016;26(2):220–240. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2014.954154.
    1. Feinberg ME, Chilenski SM, Greenberg MT, Spoth RL, Redmond C. Community and team member factors that influence the operations phase of local prevention teams: The PROSPER project. Prev Sci. 2007;8(3):214–226. doi: 10.1007/s11121-007-0069-2.
    1. Chilenski SM, Welsh J, Olson J, Hoffman L, Perkins DF, Feinberg M. Examining the highs and lows of the collaborative relationship between technical assistance providers and prevention implementers. Prev Sci. 2018;19(2):250–259. doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0812-2.
    1. Spoth R, Clair S, Greenberg M, Redmond C, Shin C. Toward dissemination of evidence-based family interventions: Maintenance of community-based partnership recruitment results and associated factors. J Fam Psychol. 2007;21(2):137–146. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.137.
    1. Feinberg ME, Greenberg MT, Osgood DW. Readiness, functioning, and perceived effectiveness in community prevention coalitions: a study of communities that care. Am J Community Psychol. 2004;33(3-4):163–176. doi: 10.1023/B:AJCP.0000027003.75394.2b.
    1. Bakeman R, Quera V, McArthur D, Robinson BF. Detecting sequential patterns and determining their reliability with fallible observers. Psychol Methods. 1997;2(4):357–370. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.357.
    1. Mastroleo NR, Mallett KA, Turrisi R, Ray AE. Psychometric properties of the Peer Proficiency Assessment (PEPA): a tool for evaluation of undergraduate peer counselors' motivational interviewing fidelity. Addict Behav. 2009;34(9):717–722. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.04.008.
    1. Moyers TB, Rowell LN, Manuel JK, Ernst D, Houck JM. The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity code (MITI 4): rationale, preliminary reliability and validity. J Subst Abus Treat. 2016;65:36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.01.001.
    1. Mallet KA, Turrisi R, Billingsley E, Trager B, Ackerman S, Reavy R, et al. Evaluation of a brief dermatologist-delivered intervention vs usual care on sun protection behavior. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(9):1010–1016. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.2331.
    1. O'Donnell CL. Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(1):33–84. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313793.
    1. Feinberg ME, Ridenour TA, Greenberg MT. Aggregated indices of risk and protective factors in the Communities That Care survey. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40(6):506–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.09.002.
    1. PCCD PCoCaD . 2019 PA Youth Survey (PAYS) Statewide Report Highlights. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency; 2020.
    1. Depue S, Kryah R, VonDras S, Sale L, Tokac U. Missouri Student Survey 2018 Report. Saint Louis, MO: Missouri Institute of Mental Health; 2019.
    1. Baldassarri D, Diani M. The integrative power of civic networks. Am J Sociol. 2007;113(3):735–780. doi: 10.1086/521839.
    1. Manning MA, Bollig-Fischer A, Bobovski LB, Lichtenberg P, Chapman R, Albrecht TL. Modeling the sustainability of community health networks: novel approaches for analyzing collaborative organization partnerships across time. Transl Behav Med. 2014;4(1):46–59. doi: 10.1007/s13142-013-0220-5.
    1. Perkins DF, Feinberg ME, Greenberg MT, Johnson LE, Chilenski SM, Mincemoyer CC, et al. Team factors that predict to sustainability indicators for community-based prevention teams. Eval Prog Plann. 2011;34(3):283–291. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.10.003.
    1. Feinberg ME, Greenberg MT, Osgood DW, Sartorius J, Bontempo D. Effects of the Communities That Care model in Pennsylvania on youth risk and problem behaviors. Prev Sci. 2007;8(4):261–270. doi: 10.1007/s11121-007-0073-6.
    1. Chilenski SM, Frank JL, Summers NM, Lew D. Public health benefits 16 years after a statewide policy change: Communities That Care in Pennsylvania. Prev Sci. 2019;20(6):947–958. doi: 10.1007/s11121-019-01028-y.
    1. Spybrook J, Raudenbush SW, Congdon R, Martinez A. Optimal design for longitudinal and multilevel research: documentation for the “Optimal Design” software. 2009.
    1. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel Analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publishers; 2003.
    1. Hoffman L. Longitudinal analysis: Modeling within-person fluctuation and change. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2015. p. 626.
    1. Thoemmes F, MacKinnon DP, Reiser MR. Power analysis for complex mediational designs using Monte Carlo Methods. Struct Equ Modeling. 2010;17:510–534. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2010.489379.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. CADCA. About Us: Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) Overview. [updated 6/7/2021]. Available from: .
    1. Crowley DM, Jones DE, Greenberg MT, Feinberg ME, Spoth RL. Resource consumption of a diffusion model for prevention programs: The PROSPER delivery system. J Adolesc Health. 2012;50:256–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.001.
    1. Levin HM, McEwan PJ, Belfield C, Bowden AB, Shand R. Economic evaluation in education: cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2017.
    1. Calculating the Costs of Child Welfare Services Workgroup . Cost analysis in program evaluation: a guide for child welfare researchers and service providers. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
    1. Feinberg ME, Ridenour TA, Greenberg MT. The longitudinal effect of technical assistance dosage on the functioning of Communities That Care prevention boards in Pennsylvania. J Prim Prev. 2008;29(2):145–165. doi: 10.1007/s10935-008-0130-3.
    1. Dishion TJ, Shaw D, Connell A, Gardner F, Weaver C, Wilson M. The Family Check-Up with high-risk indigent families: preventing problem behavior by increasing parents’ positive behavior support in early childhood. Child Dev. 2008;79(5):1395–1414. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01195.x.
    1. Reinke WM, Lewis-Palmer T, Merrell K. The Classroom Check-up: a classwide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psych Rev. 2008;37(3):315–332. doi: 10.1080/02796015.2008.12087879.
    1. McNeil DW, Addicks SH, Randall CL. Motivational interviewing and motivational interactions for health behavior change and maintenance. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다