Bringing evidence based programs to scale was a major initial impetus for the development of the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF). The ISF demonstrates the importance of the Support System in facilitating the uptake of innovations in the community (the Delivery System). Two strategies that members of the Support System commonly use are training-of-trainers (TOT) models and technical assistance (TA). In this article, we focus on the role of the Support System in bringing evidence-based programs (EBPs) to scale in the Delivery System using a case example, with special attention on two strategies employed by Support Systems-training-of-trainers (TOT) and proactive technical assistance. We then report on findings from a case example from the Promoting Science Based Approaches to Teen Pregnancy Prevention project that furthers our conceptualization of these strategies and the evidence base for them. We also report on the limitations in the literature regarding research on TOTs and proactive TA and provide suggestions for future research on TOTs and proactive TA that will enhance the science and practice of support in the ISF.

No abstract

A central question in adolescent reproductive health circles is how to effectively disseminate research to practitioners in a way that supports them in using the most scientifically sound and effective programming. In 2002, the Division of Reproductive Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tackled this question by funding three national-level and five state-level organizations focused on adolescent pregnancy prevention to promote the use of science-based programs and approaches. Healthy Teen Network (HTN) and Education, Training and Research Associates (ETR), two national organizations, have partnered under this CDC funding to implement an effective model for capacity building. This paper provides an overview of the approaches used by HTN and ETR in capacity building using a seven-step process. We describe how we modified the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) for science-based innovations to apply to capacity-building for adolescent reproductive health (ARH) programs, and how we developed relevant, sustainable training and technical support. We conclude by reviewing some of the results of this training, and discuss the future work that will likely continue to advance the science behind effective dissemination of ARH research to practice.

The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) is a multi-system framework that can guide research-to-practice efforts by building and supporting the work of three interacting systems: the Prevention Delivery, Support, and Synthesis and Translation Systems. The Synthesis and Translation system is vital to bridging science and practice, yet how to develop it and train support system partners to use it is under-researched. This article bridges this gap by offering a case example of the planning, development, and use of a synthesis and translation product called Promoting Science-based Approaches to Teen Pregnancy Prevention using Getting To Outcomes. The case presented documents the process used for developing the synthesis and translation product, reports on efforts to engage the Prevention Support system to use the product, and how we approached building interaction between the Synthesis and Translation System and the Support System partners. Practice-oriented evaluation data are also presented. Implications for practice, policy and research are discussed.

Following collaborative discussion and an initial literature review, a small group of college educators from three Canadian provinces, occupying roles at the micro, meso, and macro levels of their respective institutions, identified the need to develop a tool that considers institutional context in both determining the state of, and preparing for the advancement of, the state of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Further exploration into both the literature and our own experiences revealed that the state of SoTL within a particular institution seems to rely less on its categorization as a, for example, college, university, or technical institute, and more on the intricate web of factors that constitute the institution’s context. While other researchers have put forth this call to consider institutional context to determine support for SoTL practices and processes, a detailed process or tool for doing so was not apparent. Adopting Bolman and Deal’s (2008) framework for organizational structure, and combining this with data-gathering processes popularized by Smith’s (2005) institutional ethnography, as well as a series of guiding questions, our tool represents an initial step in systematically representing SoTL-enabling and impeding artifacts commonly found in post-secondary institutions. Assuming SoTL leaders modify this tool based on their own entry points, a call is put forward to the Canadian post-secondary SoTL community to field-test the tool in order to facilitate reflection upon how a variety of factors encourage and impede SoTL advancement at our unique institutions, the interconnections between these factors and how we might use these to solve the pedagogical problems we face. Après avoir mené une discussion collaborative et examiné la documentation publiée, un petit groupe d’éducateurs de collèges de trois provinces canadiennes, qui jouent des rôles aux niveaux micro, meso et macro dans leurs établissements respectifs, ont identifié le besoin de développer un outil qui prend en considération le contexte institutionnel à la fois pour déterminer l’état de l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage (ACEA) et pour se préparer à sa croissance. Un examen plus approfondi à la fois des documents publiés et de nos propres expériences a révélé que l’état de l’ACEA au sein d’un établissement donné semble s’appuyer non pas tant sur sa catégorisation en tant que, par exemple, collège, université ou institut technique, mais plutôt sur le réseau complexe des facteurs qui constituent le contexte de l’établissement. Bien que d’autres chercheurs aient déjà suggéré de prendre en considération le contexte institutionnel afin de déterminer le soutien apporté aux pratiques et aux processus d’ACEA, aucun processus détaillé d’outils permettant d’y arriver n’a été identifié. Notre outil, qui adapte le cadre proposé par Bolman et Deal (2008) pour une structure organisationnelle en le combinant avec des procédés de collection de données popularisés par l’ethnographie institutionnelle de Smith (2005), ainsi qu’une série de questions d’orientation, constitue une étape initiale pour représenter systématiquement les artefacts paralysants et favorables à l’ACEA communément trouvés dans les établissements post-secondaires. À supposer que les leaders de l’ACEA modifient cet outil selon leur point d’entrée, un appel est lancé à la communauté de l’ACEA des établissements d’enseignement supérieur canadiens pour tester l’outil sur le terrain afin de faciliter la réflexion sur la manière dont une variété de facteurs encouragent et entravent la croissance de l’ACEA dans nos établissements uniques, sur les inter-connexions entre ces facteurs et sur la manière dont nous pourrions les utiliser pour résoudre le problème pédagogique auquel nous sommes confrontés.