Introduction
The Office of the Secretary of Defense and each of the services have made an unprecedented commitment to the prevention of sexual assault and related behavioral health phenomena. Indeed, the Department of Air Force has selected, in some cases tailored, and disseminated a wide array of evidence-based preventative programs, policies, and practices (EBPs) over the last few decades. However, many of these efforts seem to follow a predictable life course. EBPs are initially implemented with great enthusiasm, supported for a few years, then fall out of favor, and are replaced by a different effort. This research effort aims to build on the existing civilian implementation science research to (1) offer a military-specific model of sustained, high-quality implementation and (2) test this model in a series of interconnected studies.
Materials and Methods
New York University’s Institutional Review Board approved the study protocols, and the Army’s Human Research Protection Office provided permission to collect data. We conducted interviews first with prevention leaders in the services and at the Office of the Secretary of Defense level regarding factors that they thought helped or hurt the sustainment of EBPs. We used these interviews to identify EBPs currently implemented in Department of Air Force and selected four EBPs out of the 25 identified for intensive study. We then interviewed implementers of those four EBPs regarding what they thought helped or hurt the sustainment of that EBP. We also gathered information about the 25 currently implemented EBPs themselves and gathered policy and guidance, as well as leadership communication about those EBPs and the target problems they focus on. We coded this information to allow us to test EBP parameters and policy and leader communication that predict sustained high-quality implementation. We conducted over 100 observations of the 4 EBPs we are studying intensively and have collected quantitative data from implementers and participants to help us test factors related to sustained high-quality implementation within each of those 4 EBPs and across the EBPs.
Results
Several military-specific factors were nominated for inclusion in the military-specific model of implementation sustainment. The implementation of even highly standardized EBPs varies greatly. Implementers and participants are generally highly engaged, but implementers vary in the extent to which they understand the mechanisms of action for the EBP they are implementing.
Conclusions
We recommend training implementers in the mechanisms of action in the EBPs they are expected to implement and including quality assurance as a component of prevention efforts in a manner more similar to how the military addresses aspects of the operational mission. By moving beyond counting classes and attendance, and specifying how to engage participants in the EBPs in the manner that produces the key outcomes, it is likely that EBPs will have more robust implementations that can be better sustained over time.
