A Comparison of the Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation and the CDC Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention's Research‐to‐Practice Model for Behavioral Interventions

Abstract

Translating evidence-based HIV/STD prevention interventions and research findings into applicable HIV prevention practice has become an important challenge for the fields of community psychology and public health due to evidence-based interventions and evidence-based practice being given higher priority and endorsement by federal, state, and local health department funders. The Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation and the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) Research-to-Practice model both address this challenge. The DHAP model and the ISF are each presented with a brief history and an introduction of their features from synthesis of research findings through translation into intervention materials to implementation by prevention providers. This paper describes why the ISF and the DHAP model were developed and the similarities and differences between them. Specific examples of the use of the models to translate research to practice and the subsequent implications for support of each model are provided. The paper concludes that the ISF and the DHAP model are truly complementary with some unique differences, while both contribute substantially to addressing the gap between identifying effective programs and ensuring their widespread adoption in the field.

Selling Innovations Like Soap: The Interactive Systems Framework and Social Marketing

“…The current body of ISF literature confirms this claim, with only a handful of the prominent applications of the ISF directly addressing the PSTS – the system within which communication and marketing efforts occur. Furthermore, the majority that do address the PSTS describe all three systems, and provide little explanation or investigation of the PSTS specifically (e.g., Collins et al., ; Florin et al., ; Gregory et al., ; Lane et al., ; Nápoles et al., ; Rapkin et al., ). While these articles do offer some useful discussion and direction for the PSTS, to be discussed later in this paper, it is challenging to find applications or examinations of the ISF that focus solely on the PSTS (see Lewis et al., ; Thigpen, Puddy, Singer, & Hall, for exceptions).…”

“…Much like the first gap, the discussion of practices within the PSTS occurs the least frequently. The majority of practices that are described within the PSTS focus mainly on synthesis strategies like processes for effectively compiling literature reviews, meta‐analyses, or best practice manuals (Collins et al., ; Lesesne et al., ; Lewis et al., ). As far as how to actually do these things effectively though, the literature stresses one key process, collaborating with stakeholders, but is notably vague.…”

Adaptation and National Dissemination of a Brief, Evidence-Based, HIV Prevention Intervention for High-Risk Men Who Have Sex with Men

“…The CDC approach involves eight key activities: 1) planning dissemination of interventions with both researchers and public health stakeholders; 2) marketing interventions to encourage customer choice; 3) supporting changes to policies regarding funding announcements, clinical guidelines, and program guidance that support evidencebased practices; 4) disseminating intervention resources; 5) providing intervention training; 6) building capacity for and providing technical assistance with the intervention; 7) improving quality; and 8) evaluating dissemination (61). CDC funds capacity-building assistance providers to support PCC implementation.…”

Lessons Learned While Preparing a Tailored, Self-Help, Technology-Driven Intervention for National Dissemination

“…The research-to-practice model supported by the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) consists of three key activities: identification, translation, and dissemination (Collins, Harshbarger, Sawyer, & Hamdallah, 2006;Collins et al, 2012;Collins, Johnson, & Lyles, 2007;Eke, Neumann, Wilkes, & Jones, 2006;Jones, Baker, Gelaude, King, & Jemmott, 2013;Neumann & Sogolow, 2000). Typically, HIV risk reduction interventions and their evaluations are reviewed by the HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis (PRS) project to identify interventions that demonstrate evidence of efficacy, according to the PRS efficacy criteria (CDC, 2011b).…”