Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37790177›Full record

ArticleImplementation research and practice

Trajectory of external implementation support activities across two states in the United States: A descriptive study.

William A Aldridge, Rebecca H Roppolo, Shannon D Chaplo, Ariel B Everett, Sherra N Lawrence, Christina I DiSalvo, Devon R Minch, Jessica J Reed, Renée I Boothroyd

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

William A AldridgeThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8267-2753
Rebecca H RoppoloThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3564-4773
Shannon D ChaploThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Ariel B EverettThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Sherra N LawrenceThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Christina I DiSalvoThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Devon R MinchThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jessica J ReedThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Renée I BoothroydThe Impact Center at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Reporting on strategies to advance implementation outcomes is imperative. The current study reports descriptive information about external implementation support (EIS) provided over 5 years to 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family supports. Regional support teams operating through the Implementation Capacity for Triple P (ICTP) projects employed core practice components (CPCs) for EIS as proposed by Aldridge et al. and further operationalized by members of The Impact Center at FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill. Method: Practice activities associated with CPCs were developed and iteratively refined across the study period. ICTP regional support teams systematically tracked their use of CPCs and related activities following each substantive support interaction. Tracking included the duration of time a CPC was employed and the use of specific practice activities associated with that CPC. Data were aggregated by month of the relationship to account for differential start dates across regions. Results: From November 2016 through December 2021, ICTP support teams tracked 749 support interactions with Triple P regions in North Carolina and South Carolina. Monthly support decreased year over year, though dose varied considerably. Patterns of CPC use indicated a high dose of "foundational" and "co-design" CPCs early, followed by a blended and more diverse use thereafter, with some notable trends. Practice activities considered essential to influencing intended practice outcomes were characterized by higher rates of use. Like CPCs, practice activities were used dynamically across the study period. Conclusions: This descriptive study offers a case study for how EIS might be operationalized, tracked, and employed. Findings suggest several interpretations that might refine our understanding and use of EIS. Although the nature of this practical report precludes generalizability of findings, directions for future research and practice are discussed.

Indexed as

facilitationimplementation mechanismsimplementation practiceimplementation strategiesimplementation support practitionerintermediariestechnical assistance

Identifiers

PMID37790177
PMCPMC10293536

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.