Juvenile Justice-Translating Research Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS): a multi-site, cooperative implementation science cooperative

Wiley, Tisha R. A.; Belenko, Steven; Knight, Danica K.; Bartkowski, John P.; Robertson, Angela; Aarons, Gregory A.; Wasserman, Gail A.; Leukefeld, Carl G.; DiClemente, Ralph J.; Jones, Dionne J.

doi:10.1186/1748-5908-10-s1-a43

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While this is encouraging, we recommend that future implementation efforts consider how EPIS can be applied longitudinally throughout all phases (i.e., Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment) and levels (e.g., system, organization, provider) of the implementation process. We suggest that implementation efforts “begin with sustainment in mind.” This reflects the increasing emphasis within implementation science on explicit incorporation or acknowledgement of the sustainment phase from the outset of study planning and execution [56, 57]. Further, our results suggest that EPIS was most commonly used to inform the study design, report results, and frame the research endeavor.…”

Section: Future Directions Of Epismentioning

confidence: 61%

Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEffective implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) remains a significant challenge. Numerous existing models and frameworks identify key factors and processes to facilitate implementation. However, there is a need to better understand how individual models and frameworks are applied in research projects, how they can support the implementation process, and how they might advance implementation science. This systematic review examines and describes the research application of a widely used implementation framework, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify and evaluate the use of the EPIS framework in implementation efforts. Citation searches in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Social Sciences Index, and Google Scholar databases were undertaken. Data extraction included the objective, language, country, setting, sector, EBP, study design, methodology, level(s) of data collection, unit(s) of analysis, use of EPIS (i.e., purpose), implementation factors and processes, EPIS stages, implementation strategy, implementation outcomes, and overall depth of EPIS use (rated on a 1–5 scale).ResultsIn total, 762 full-text articles were screened by four reviewers, resulting in inclusion of 67 articles, representing 49 unique research projects. All included projects were conducted in public sector settings. The majority of projects (73%) investigated the implementation of a specific EBP. The majority of projects (90%) examined inner context factors, 57% examined outer context factors, 37% examined innovation factors, and 31% bridging factors (i.e., factors that cross or link the outer system and inner organizational context). On average, projects measured EPIS factors across two of the EPIS phases (M = 2.02), with the most frequent phase being Implementation (73%). On average, the overall depth of EPIS inclusion was moderate (2.8 out of 5).ConclusionThis systematic review enumerated multiple settings and ways the EPIS framework has been applied in implementation research projects, and summarized promising characteristics and strengths of the framework, illustrated with examples. Recommendations for future use include more precise operationalization of factors, increased depth and breadth of application, development of aligned measures, and broadening of user networks. Additional resources supporting the operationalization of EPIS are available.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Future Directions Of Epismentioning

confidence: 61%

Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, rates of both mental health and substance-use problems among justice-involved youth are high (Fazel, Doll, & Långström, 2008; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002), and as such, participation in mental health programs (e.g., individual therapy) and substance use programs (e.g., mandatory drug testing or treatment) are often a requirement of probation. Many evidence-based mental/behavioral health interventions have shown promise in reducing risk of recidivism among youth (Evans-Chase & Zhou, 2014; Lipsey, 2009), and as such, there are ongoing efforts to implement such interventions across jurisdictions (Wiley et al, 2015).…”

Section: Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The point of diminishing returns in juvenile probation: Probation requirements and risk of technical probation violations among first-time probation-involved youth.

Dir¹,

Magee²,

Clifton³

et al. 2021

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technical probation violations are common among probation-involved youth and, across many jurisdictions, may result in detention or residential placement. The current study examined prevalence of technical violations occurring during one's first probation period, the average time to technical violation, and individual-level and justice-related factors related to technical violations among probation-involved youth in a juvenile justice system. We analyzed electronic criminal records of 18,289 probation-involved youth following their first arrest (68.7% male, 53.9% Black, Mage ϭ 15.2 years). Technical violation was defined as a violation resulting from a noncriminal incident. We examined effects of charge severity, probation conditions (e.g., electronic monitoring), and program referrals (e.g., mental health) on likelihood of technical violation utilizing survival analysis stratified by race. Across 18,289 youth, 15.3% received a technical violation during their first probation; Black youth violated more quickly compared with White youth (log-rank test p Ͻ .001). In multivariate survival analyses, the hazard for time to technical violation was higher for Black youth compared with White youth (p Ͻ .001), males (p ϭ .04), and younger youth (p Ͻ .001). Youth assigned to more probation requirements violated more quickly. Electronic monitoring and education, mental health, and drug programs were associated with shorter time to violation, controlling for race, ethnicity, and charge severity. Black youth violate more quickly compared with White youth. Across all youth, assignment to more probation requirements increased risk of technical violation and shorter time to violation. Despite the benefit of probation interventions, system-level efforts are needed to help youth adhere to probation requirements and successfully complete probation.

show abstract

Using structured implementation interventions to improve referral to substance use treatment among justice-involved youth: Findings from a multisite cluster randomized trial

Belenko

Dembo

Knight

et al. 2022

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juvenile Justice-Translating Research Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS): a multi-site, cooperative implementation science cooperative

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

The point of diminishing returns in juvenile probation: Probation requirements and risk of technical probation violations among first-time probation-involved youth.

Using structured implementation interventions to improve referral to substance use treatment among justice-involved youth: Findings from a multisite cluster randomized trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About