Background The wide variety of dissemination and implementation designs now being used to evaluate and improve health systems and outcomes warrants review of the scope, features, and limitations of these designs. Methods This paper is one product of a design workgroup formed in 2013 by the National Institutes of Health to address dissemination and implementation research, and whose members represented diverse methodologic backgrounds, content focus areas, and health sectors. These experts integrated their collective knowledge on dissemination and implementation designs with searches of published evaluations strategies. Results This paper emphasizes randomized and non-randomized designs for the traditional translational research continuum or pipeline, which builds on existing efficacy and effectiveness trials to examine how one or more evidence-based clinical/prevention interventions are adopted, scaled up, and sustained in community or service delivery systems. We also mention other designs, including hybrid designs that combine effectiveness and implementation research, quality improvement designs for local knowledge, and designs that use simulation modeling.
This paper presents findings from an overview of meta-analyses of the effects of prevention and promotion programs to prevent mental health, substance use and conduct problems. The review of 48 meta-analyses found small but significant effects to reduce depression, anxiety, anti-social behavior and substance use. Further, the effects are sustained over time. Meta-analyses often found that the effects were heterogeneous. A conceptual model is proposed to guide the study of moderators of program effects in future meta-analyses and methodological issues in synthesizing findings across preventive interventions are discussed.
BackgroundMuch is to be learned about what implementation strategies are the most beneficial to communities attempting to adopt evidence-based practices. This paper presents outcomes from a randomized implementation trial of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) in child public service systems in California and Ohio, including child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health.MethodsFifty-one counties were assigned randomly to one of two different implementation strategies (Community Development Teams (CDT) or independent county implementation strategy (IND)) across four cohorts after being matched on county characteristics. We compared these two strategies on implementation process, quality, and milestone achievements using the Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC) (Implement Sci 6(1):1–8, 2011).ResultsA composite score for each county, combining the final implementation stage attained, the number of families served, and quality of implementation, was used as the primary outcome. No significant difference between CDT and IND was found for the composite measure. Additional analyses showed that there was no evidence that CDT increased the proportion of counties that started-up programs (i.e., placed at least one family in MTFC). For counties that did implement MTFC, those in the CDT condition served over twice as many youth during the study period as did IND. Of the counties that successfully achieved program start-up, those in the CDT condition completed the implementation process more thoroughly, as measured by the SIC. We found no significant differences by implementation condition on the time it took for first placement, achieving competency, or number of stages completed.ConclusionsThis trial did not lead to higher rates of implementation or faster implementation but did provide evidence for more robust implementation in the CDT condition compared to IND implementation once the first family received MTFC services. This trial was successful from a design perspective in that no counties dropped out, even though this study took place during an economic recession. We believe that this methodologic approach of measurement utilizing the SIC, which is comprised of the three dimensions of quality, quantity, and timing, is appropriate for a wide range of implementation and translational studies.Trial registrationTrial ID: NCT00880126 (ClinicalTrials.gov).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0134-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This paper presents the first findings of an integrative data analysis of individual-level data from 19 adolescent depression prevention trials (n = 5210) involving nine distinct interventions across 2 years post-randomization. In separate papers, several interventions have been found to decrease the risk of depressive disorders or elevated depressive/internalizing symptoms among youth. One type of intervention specifically targets youth without a depressive disorder who are at risk due to elevated depressive symptoms and/or having a parent with a depressive disorder. A second type of intervention targets two broad domains: prevention of problem behaviors, which we define as drug use/abuse, sexual risk behaviors, conduct disorder, or other externalizing problems, and general mental health. Most of these latter interventions improve parenting or family factors. We examined the shared and unique effects of these interventions by level of baseline youth depressive symptoms, sociodemographic characteristics of the youth (age, sex, parent education, and family income), type of intervention, and mode of intervention delivery to the youth, parent(s), or both. We harmonized eight different measures of depression utilized across these trials and used growth models to evaluate intervention impact over 2 years. We found a significant overall effect of these interventions on reducing depressive symptoms over 2 years and a stronger impact among those interventions that targeted depression specifically rather than problem behaviors or general mental health, especially when baseline symptoms were high. Implications for improving population-level impact are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.