Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34964893›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2022

Understanding key implementation determinants for a school-based universal prevention intervention: a qualitative study.

Andria B Eisman, Sarah Kiperman, Laney A Rupp, Amy M Kilbourne, Lawrence A Palinkas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Using After Action Review to Identify Rapid Response Implementation Strategies for Emerging Drugs Among Youth.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Teaching Strategies to Enhance Knowledge and Understanding of Opisthorchis viverrini and Cholangiocarcinoma in Thailand: Lessons for Asian Countries.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Michigan Model for HealthPilot and feasibility studies · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Andria B EismanDivision of Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies, College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4100-6543
Sarah KipermanEducational Psychology, College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Laney A RuppDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Amy M KilbourneDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Lawrence A PalinkasSchool of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0974-7330

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
Preventing Substance Use Among Youth: Behavioral and Economic Impact of Enhanced Implementation Strategies for CommunitiesK01DA044279 · NIDA · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI EISMAN, ANDRIA B · 2019 to 2023
$874k
Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research UL1TR002240NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA044279NIH HHS K01DA044279
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined how teachers discuss various factors as impacting their ability to execute with fidelity the Michigan Model for Health (MMH), an evidence-based health universal prevention curriculum widely adopted throughout Michigan. Researchers have found a robust relationship between fidelity and participant outcomes, including in schools. While previous studies have identified barriers that inhibit fidelity, few have focused on identifying key barriers and deepening our understanding of how these factors influence intervention fidelity. We conducted a thematic analysis using the reflexive thematic approach to identify key barriers and facilitators and deepen our understanding of how these factors influence MMH implementation. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Implementation Outcomes Framework, we conducted semistructured interviews with 23 high school health teachers across Michigan. Teachers identified intervention characteristics (e.g., design quality, packaging, and program adaptability), student needs (e.g., trauma exposure, substances), and the fit between the intervention and the context as factors that contributed to acceptability. They also discussed the curriculum and its alignment with their teaching style and/or experiences as contributing to fidelity. Teachers shared how they would often go "off protocol" to improve intervention-context fit and meet students' needs. Our results identified acceptability, a perceptual implementation outcome, as demonstrating an important role in shaping the relationship between CFIR factors and fidelity. Results provide guidance for systematically designing implementation strategies that address key barriers to improve acceptability, enhance fidelity, and ultimately achieve desired public health objectives.

Indexed as

Educational PersonnelSchool Health ServicesHumansQualitative ResearchSchoolsSchool TeachersAdolescent healthCommunity healthEducationImplementation scienceSchool health promotion

Identifiers

PMID34964893
PMCPMC8929750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.