Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37091102›Full record

ArticleImplementation research and practice

A mixed methods investigation of implementation determinants for a school-based universal prevention intervention.

Andria B Eisman, Lawrence A Palinkas, Suzanne Brown, Leslie Lundahl, Amy M Kilbourne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation research and practice. 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. How Can Implementation Science Advance Behavioral Interventions in Preschool? A Scoping Review and Recommendations.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Andria B EismanCommunity Health, Division of Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies, College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4100-6543
Lawrence A PalinkasSuzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Suzanne BrownSchool of Social Work, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Leslie LundahlSchool of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Amy M KilbourneDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

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
NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA044279
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective implementation of evidence-based prevention interventions in schools is vital to reducing the burden of drug use and its consequences. Universal prevention interventions often fail to achieve desired public health outcomes due to poor implementation. One central reason for suboptimal implementation is the limited fit between the intervention and the setting. Research is needed to increase our understanding of how intervention characteristics and context influence intervention implementation in schools to design implementation strategies that will address barriers and improve public health impact. Methods: Using a convergent mixed methods design we examined qualitative and quantitative data on implementation determinants for an evidence-based health curriculum, the Michigan Model for Health Results: We identified three mixed methods domains: (1) Acceptability, (2) intervention-context fit, and (3) adaptability. We found alignment across data strands as teachers reporting low acceptability also reported low fidelity. The fit between student needs and the curriculum predicted fidelity (expansion). Teachers mentioned instances of poor intervention-context fit (discordance), including when meeting the needs of trauma-exposed youth and keeping updated on youth drug use trends. Teachers reported high adaptability (concordance) but also instances when adaptation was challenging (discordance). Conclusions: This investigation advances implementation research by deepening our understanding of implementation determinants for an evidence-based universal prevention intervention in schools. This will support designing effective implementation strategies to address barriers and advance the public health impact of interventions that address important risk and protective factors for all youth. Plain Language Summary: (1) What is Already Known About the Topic? While many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) exist to address key health issues among youth including substance use and mental health, few of these interventions are effectively implemented in community settings, such as schools. Notable multilevel barriers exist to implement universal prevention in schools. Researchers identify that misalignment between the intervention and the context is a key reason why many implementation efforts do not achieve desired outcomes. (2) What Does This Paper Add? This paper combines the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research methods to identify and understand challenges to intervention-context fit for a comprehensive health curriculum, the Michigan Model for Health

Indexed as

adolescenceimplementation sciencemixed methodspreventionschool healthsubstance use

Identifiers

PMID37091102
PMCPMC9978636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.