Based on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".

This meta-analysis examined the effects of the Early Start Denver Model (ESDM) for young children with autism on developmental outcome measures. The 12 included studies reported results from 640 children with autism across 44 unique effect sizes. The aggregated effect size, calculated using a robust variance estimation meta-analysis, was 0.357 (p = 0.024), which is a moderate effect size with a statistically significant overall weighted averaged that favored participants who received the ESDM compared to children in control groups, with moderate heterogeneity across studies. This result was largely driven by improvements in cognition (g = 0.412) and language (g = 0.408). There were no significant effects observed for measures of autism symptomology, adaptive behavior, social communication, or restrictive and repetitive behaviors.

IntroductionMechanisms explain how implementation strategies work. Implementation research requires careful operationalisation and empirical study of the causal pathway(s) by which strategies effect change, and factors that may amplify or weaken their effects. Understanding mechanisms is critically important to replicate findings, learn from negative studies or adapt an implementation strategy developed in one setting to another. Without understanding implementation mechanisms, it is difficult to design strategies to produce expected effects across contexts, which may have disproportionate effects on settings in which priority populations receive care. This manuscript outlines the protocol for an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded initiative to: (1) establish priorities for an agenda to guide research on implementation mechanisms in health and public health, and (2) disseminate the agenda to research, policy and practice audiences.Methods and analysisA network of scientific experts will convene in ‘Deep Dive’ meetings across 3 years. A research agenda will be generated through analysis and synthesis of information from six sources: (1) systematic reviews, (2) network members’ approaches to studying mechanisms, (3) new proposals presented in implementation proposal feedback sessions, (4) working group sessions conducted in a leading implementation research training institute, (5) breakout sessions at the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration’s (SIRC) 2019 conference and (6) SIRC conference abstracts. Two members will extract mechanism-relevant text segments from each data source and a third member will generate statements as an input for concept mapping. Concept mapping will generate unique clusters of challenges, and the network will engage in a nominal group process to identify priorities for the research agenda.Ethics and disseminationThis initiative will yield an actionable research agenda to guide research to identify and test mechanisms of change for implementation strategies. The agenda will be disseminated via multiple channels to solicit feedback and promote rigorous research on implementation mechanisms.

The purpose of this review was to estimate the impact of parent engagement strategies tested with underrepresented families of young children with social, emotional, or behavioral disorders, and describe the combinations in which these strategies are commonly used together. We conducted a systematic review using the PracticeWise Engagement Coding System to identify which strategies had the strongest empirical support for engaging underrepresented (i.e., minority race or ethnicity, or low income) families receiving psychosocial services for their children. Social network analyses were used to identify the frequency of strategy use and how strategies were combined to engage underrepresented families. Linear regression was used to estimate the impact of each strategy on parent engagement, using attrition as a proxy for non-engagement. Thirty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Parent attrition was predicted by larger sample sizes, lower maternal education, interventions that were more community or home-based, less therapist monitoring, positive reinforcement from therapists, and more pairing families with peers. Social network analyses suggested that more effective strategies were more frequently implemented alone and less effective strategies were commonly combined with each other. Our findings suggest that researchers and practitioners require guidance in selecting engagement strategies to reduce attrition of underrepresented families in treatment. Although we identified promising strategies for improving parent engagement in treatment for underrepresented children with social, emotional, or behavioral disorders, the frequent combining of engagement strategies in research means that there is little data on the independent effects of interventions to increase parent engagement for this population.