Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28677088›Full record

Trial reportPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2018

Examining the Highs and Lows of the Collaborative Relationship Between Technical Assistance Providers and Prevention Implementers.

Sarah M Chilenski, Janet Welsh, Jonathan Olson, Lesa Hoffman, Daniel F Perkins, Mark E Feinberg

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Repeated measures of implementation variables.Frontiers in health services · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sarah M ChilenskiPrevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. sem268@psu.edu.
Janet WelshPrevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Jonathan OlsonBastyr University, Kenmore, WA, USA.
Lesa HoffmanSchiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
Daniel F PerkinsThe Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Mark E FeinbergPrevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.

Funding

Partnership Model for Diffusion of Proven PreventionR01DA013709 · NIDA · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SPOTH, RICHARD · 2002 to 2017
$35.0M
Rural Family and Community Drug Abuse Prevention ProjectR01AA014702 · NIAAA · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SPOTH, RICHARD · 2003 to 2007
$3.0M
Adoption and Implementation Support Innovations for PROSPER Partnership-Based EBIR18DP002279 · DP · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI GREENBERG, MARK T., SPOTH, RICHARD · 2009 to 2011
$1.3M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS R18 DP002279NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA014702NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA013709
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The PROSPER model uses a three-tiered community partnership, university researcher, and Cooperative Extension-based technical assistance system to support the delivery of evidence-based interventions in communities. This study examines the trajectory and predictors of the collaborative relationship between technical assistance providers and community teams across the three phases of organization, implementation, and sustainability. Members of 14 PROmoting School-university-community Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) community teams and directors of local agencies rated communities' levels of readiness and adolescent substance use norms. Technical assistance providers rated their collaborative relationship with their teams at 14 occasions across 4.5 years. Results from mixed models show that levels of collaboration were stable until the sustainability phase, when they increased significantly. Team differences in change were significant during the implementation phase. Community readiness predicted levels of the collaborative relationship over time: high community readiness was associated with a high level of collaboration during organization, but a decline in collaboration during implementation. These results provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between technical assistance provision and community prevention teams and lead to recommendations to improve dissemination models to achieve a greater public health impact.

Indexed as

Community NetworksCooperative BehaviorHealth Planning Technical AssistancePreventive Health ServicesAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung AdultCollaborationCommunity prevention systemLongitudinal analysisMulti-level modelingTechnical assistance

Identifiers

PMID28677088
PMCPMC5754258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.