Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36793001›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Using formative evaluation of a community-based opioid overdose prevention program to inform strategic communication for adoption, implementation, and sustainability.

Candice Bangham, Stacey Cunnington, Sarah Fielman, Meredith Hurley, Sarko Gergerian, Jacey A Greece

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Candice BanghamDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, 02118, Boston, MA, USA.
Stacey CunningtonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, 02118, Boston, MA, USA.
Sarah FielmanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, 02118, Boston, MA, USA.
Meredith HurleyWinthrop Department of Public Health & Clinical Services, 45 Pauline Street, 02152, Winthrop, MA, USA.
Sarko GergerianWinthrop Department of Public Health & Clinical Services, 45 Pauline Street, 02152, Winthrop, MA, USA.
Jacey A GreeceDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, 02118, Boston, MA, USA. jabloom@bu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpioid addiction and overdose is a public health problem in the United States and is expected to remain with substance use increasing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities that approach this issue through multi-sector partnerships experience more positive health outcomes. Understanding motivation for stakeholder engagement in these efforts is essential to successful adoption, implementation, and sustainability particularly in the shifting landscape of needs and resources.

methodsA formative evaluation was conducted on the C.L.E.A.R. Program in Massachusetts, a state heavily impacted by the opioid epidemic. A stakeholder power analysis identified appropriate stakeholders for the study (n = 9). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data collection and analysis. Surveys (n = 8) examined perception and attitudes on the program; motivations and communication for engagement; and, benefits and barriers to collaboration. Stakeholder interviews (n = 6) explored the quantitative findings in more detail. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a content analysis with deductive approach was conducted for stakeholder interviews. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory guided recommendations for communications to engage stakeholders.

resultsAgencies represented a range of sectors and the majority (n = 5) were familiar with the C.L.E.A.R. PROGRAM: Despite the many strengths of the program and existing collaboration, based on the coding densities of each CFIR construct stakeholders identified crucial gaps in the services the program provided and noted that the overall infrastructure of the program could be enhanced. Opportunities for strategic communication to address the stages of DOI align with the gaps identified in the CFIR domains to result in increased agency collaboration and expansion of services into the surrounding communities to ensure sustainability of the C.L.E.A.R. PROGRAM:

conclusionsThis study explored factors necessary for ongoing multi-sector collaboration and sustainability of an existing community-based program especially given the changing context from COVID-19. Findings informed both program revisions and communication strategies to promote the program to new and existing collaborating agencies and the community served, and identify effective communication approaches across sectors. This is essential for successful implementation and sustainability of the program, especially as it is adapted and expanded to address post-pandemic times.

trial registrationThis study does not report results of a health care intervention on human participants, however it was reviewed and determined an exempt study with the Boston University Institutional Review Board (IRB #H-42107).

Indexed as

COVID-19Opiate OverdoseCommunicationDelivery of Health CareHumansPandemicsUnited StatesConsolidated Framework for Implementation ResearchDiffusion of innovationFormative evaluationImplementation frameworksInterventionMulti-sector partnershipsOpioid programsPublic health programsPublic safety

Identifiers

PMID36793001
PMCPMC9930042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.