Introduction and Conceptual Model for Utilization of Prevention Research

Davis, Sally; Peterson, Jeffery Chaichana; Helfrich, Christian D.; Cunningham‐Sabo, Leslie

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.004

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An action model is a type of process model that provides practical guidance in the planning and execution of implementation endeavours and/or implementation strategies to facilitate implementation. Note that the terms “model” and “framework” are both used, but the former appears to be the most common Model by Huberman [ 40 ], model by Landry et al [ 41 ], model by Davies et al [ 43 ], model by Majdzadeh et al [ 44 ], the CIHR Model of Knowledge Translation [ 42 ], the K2A Framework [ 15 ], the Stetler Model [ 47 ], the ACE Star Model of Knowledge Transformation [ 48 ], the Knowledge-to-Action Model [ 13 ], the Iowa Model [ 49 , 50 ], the Ottawa Model [ 51 , 52 ], model by Grol and Wensing [ 53 ], model by Pronovost et al [ 54 ], the Quality Implementation Framework [ 27 ] Determinant frameworks Specify types (also known as classes or domains) of determinants and individual determinants, which act as barriers and enablers (independent variables) that influence implementation outcomes (dependent variables). Some frameworks also specify relationships between some types of determinants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Process models are used to describe and/or guide the process of translating research into practice. Models by Huberman [ 40 ], Landry et al [ 41 ], the CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) Knowledge Model of Knowledge Translation [ 42 ], Davis et al [ 43 ], Majdzadeh et al [ 44 ] and the K2A (Knowledge-to-Action) Framework [ 15 ] outline phases or stages of the research-to-practice process, from discovery and production of research-based knowledge to implementation and use of research in various settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImplementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers.DiscussionTheoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks).SummaryThis article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples include biomarker, screen, or assay validation; clinical testing; tool validation and use; and effectiveness testing. Current work in dissemination and implementation science would fit within this category (e.g., Davis et al. 2007 ; Glasgow et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the Concept of Translational Research: Making a Place for Environmental Health Sciences

Pettibone

Balshaw

Dilworth

et al. 2018

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) introduces a new translational research framework that builds upon previous biomedical models to create a more comprehensive and integrated environmental health paradigm. The framework was developed as a graphical construct that illustrates the complexity of designing, implementing, and tracking translational research in environmental health. We conceptualize translational research as a series of concentric rings and nodes, defining “translation” as movement either from one ring to another or between nodes on a ring. A “Fundamental Questions” ring expands upon the research described in other frameworks as “basic” to include three interrelated concepts critical to basic science research: research questions, experimental settings, and organisms. This feature enables us to capture more granularity and thus facilitates an approach for categorizing translational research and its growth over time. We anticipate that the framework will help researchers develop compelling long-term translational research stories and accelerate public health impacts by clearly mapping out opportunities for collaborations. By using this paradigm, researchers everywhere will be better positioned to design research programs, identify research partners based on cross-disciplinary research needs, identify stakeholders who are likely to use the research for environmental decision-making and intervention, and track progress toward common goals. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3657

show abstract

“…The measure of adoption of a science-based approach to prevention is conceptually based on a diffusion of innovation metric (Arthur et al, 2005; Davis, Peterson, Helfrich, & Cunningham-Sabo, 2007; Rogers, 2003). An adoption score of 0 indicates little or no awareness of prevention science concepts such as risk and protective factors and their relevance to prevention programming.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in the Effect of Communities That Care on Community Adoption of a Scientific Approach to Prevention

Shapiro

Hawkins

Oesterle

et al. 2013

Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tested and effective approaches are available to prevent mental, emotional, and behavioral problems in youth, but such approaches are underused. Communities That Care (CTC) is a coalition-based strategy that aims to increase the use of tested and effective programs by combining the use of scientific evidence and stakeholder consensus to support the community adoption of a scientific approach to preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral problems in youth. A community-randomized trial of CTC was conducted with a sample of 24 communities matched in pairs and assigned randomly to a control or an intervention condition. The findings demonstrate that CTC significantly increases the community-wide adoption of a science-based approach to prevention. Using a meta-analysis technique, this study shows that despite uniformly high-fidelity implementation of CTC in intervention communities, the effect of CTC on the adoption of a scientific approach to prevention varies significantly across the 12 community pairs. Understanding the extent of variation in the effect of CTC on adopting a science-based approach to prevention lays a foundation for identifying aspects of coalition structure, functioning, or capacity that not only may help explain variation in adoption, but may in turn be targeted to strengthen the effect of CTC on the adoption of a science-based approach to prevention within communities.

show abstract

Introduction and Conceptual Model for Utilization of Prevention Research

Cited by 27 publications

References 21 publications

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

Expanding the Concept of Translational Research: Making a Place for Environmental Health Sciences

Variation in the Effect of Communities That Care on Community Adoption of a Scientific Approach to Prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About