Increased availability of research-supported, school-based prevention programs, coupled with the growing national policy emphasis on use of evidence-based practices, has contributed to a shift in research priorities from efficacy to implementation and dissemination. A critical issue in moving research to practice is ensuring high-quality implementation of both the intervention model and the support system for sustaining it. The paper describes a three-level framework for considering the implementation quality of school-based interventions. Future directions for research on implementation are discussed.

This study examined the factors that are important to successful implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions in school settings. Developers of interventions that have been designated as ''evidence-based'' in multiple vetted lists and registries available to schools participated in a structured interview. The interview focused on potential facilitators and barriers to implementation and sustainability of their intervention. The interviews were transcribed and coded to identify similarities and differences among the responses as well as themes that cut across participants. Results indicated that those concerned with effective implementation and sustainability need to address several areas: (a) development of principal and other administrator support; (b) development of teacher support; (c) development of financial resources to sustain practice; (d) provision of high-quality training and consultation to ensure fidelity; (e) alignment of the intervention with school philosophy, goals, policies, and programs; (f) ensuring that program outcomes and impact are visible to key stakeholders; and (g) development of methods for addressing turnover in school staff and administrators.

Context:In response to national efforts to improve quality of care, policymakers and health care leaders have increasingly turned to quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) as an efficient approach to improving provider practices and patient outcomes through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. This article presents findings from a systematic review of the literature on QICs, focusing on the identification of common components of QICs in health care and exploring, when possible, relations between QIC components and outcomes at the patient or provider level. Methods:A systematic search of five major health care databases generated 294 unique articles, twenty-four of which met our criteria for inclusion in our final analysis. These articles pertained to either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups, and they reported the findings from twenty different studies of QICs in health care. We coded the articles to identify the components reported for each collaborative. Findings:We found fourteen crosscutting components as common ingredients in health care QICs (e.g., in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in QI methods). The collaboratives reported included, on average, six to seven of these components. The most common were in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, multidisciplinary QI teams, and data collection for QI. The outcomes data

A comprehensive review of structured family support programs in children's mental health was conducted in collaboration with leadership from key national family organizations. The goals were to identify typologies of family support services for which evaluation data existed and identify research gaps. Over 200 programs were examined; 50 met criteria for inclusion. Programs were categorized by whether they were delivered by peer family members, clinicians, or teams. Five salient components of family support were identified: (a) informational, (b) instructional, (c) emotional, (d) instrumental, and (e) advocacy. Clinician-led programs were heavily represented (n = 33, 66%), followed by family-led (n = 11, 22%), and team-delivered (n = 6, 12%) programs. Key differences between programs delivered by clinicians or by peer family members were found in the degree of emphasis, research methodology, and outcomes. However, the content of the components was similar across all three program types. There are both important differences in emphasis across typologies of family support provided by clinicians, family members, or teams as well as important similarities in content. Family-delivered support may be an important adjunct to existing services for parents, although the research base remains thin. A research agenda to promote more rigorous evaluations of these services especially those delivered by peer family members is critical.