ArticleImplementation research and practice
Implementation strategies for school-based universal prevention: A qualitative pilot study of Enhanced and standard Replicating Effective Programs.
Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: School-based universal prevention programs, like the Michigan Model for Health™ (MMH), hold promise for enhancing youth behavioral health but often face implementation challenges due to insufficiently addressing priority student issues. Previous research identified trauma-sensitive content as a student need in the MMH. Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs (REP), a multicomponent implementation strategy, is well suited to support program providers in addressing priority health issues among youth. Method: This pilot cluster-randomized controlled trial compared Enhanced REP (tailored curriculum, training, and implementation facilitation with trauma-sensitive content) to standard REP (standard curriculum, initial training, as-needed technical assistance) across eight high schools serving low-income students. Through semistructured interviews at three time points, we assessed teacher perceptions of feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness related to REP core and enhanced components. Results: Teachers generally found Enhanced REP to deliver MMH satisfactory and suitable. However, the school environment, notably administrative support, influenced feasibility compared to standard REP. Enhanced REP teachers reported benefits in meeting student needs that were not seen in the standard REP group. The standard REP data helped to understand the comparative value of the enhanced strategy during a time of notable upheaval and mental health challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: While some schools may succeed with less intensive strategies (REP), many may require more intensive approaches for effective implementation. Enhanced REP shows promise in tailoring curriculum delivery and providing additional support to meet student needs, but its success may hinge on organizational support, especially from leadership. Future research should investigate the addition of organizational-level strategies, such as leadership training, to optimize implementation and explore the comparative effectiveness of Enhanced versus standard REP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.