Challenges in Supporting Community Implementation of Science‐based Programs: A Critical Review of Local Partnerships for Success Plans

Abstract

This paper provides the opportunity to consider local challenges to implementing science-based programs. Wandersman et al. (American Journal of Community Psychology 2008) define three systems necessary to effectively implement science-based programming. These systems include the Prevention Support System, which is responsible for assisting communities in implementing effective practices; the Prevention Research System, which is responsible for developing and packaging prevention programming; and the Prevention Delivery System, which is responsible for delivering services. The authors conduct a content analysis related to six county level efforts to implement science-based programs in Ohio. These counties are part of a larger Ohio initiative referred to as Partnerships for Success. The authors suggest that local officials are quite skilled at accessing the Prevention Research System and providers at the local level represent an effective service delivery system. The authors contend that the Prevention Support System in these counties is capable of enhancing several functions related to local infrastructure but is deficient in other important elements.

Developing a Prevention Synthesis and Translation System to Promote Science‐Based Approaches to Teen Pregnancy, HIV and STI Prevention

“…(2) Partnerships for Success (Julian et al 2008); (3) Precede-Proceed Model of Health Promotion Program Planning and Evaluation (Green and Kreuter 2005); (4) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Prevention Platform (SAMHSA 2004) and (5) Getting To Outcomes (GTO) (Chinman et al 2004). The CDC PSBA team chose the GTO model to serve as the foundation of the teen pregnancy PSTS because it effectively filled all of our following five key criteria: (1) ease of use for grantees and local organizations; (2) flexible enough to be molded for teen pregnancy/ HIV/STI prevention topics; (3) evidence that the process results in capacity change(s); (4) readily available for immediate adaptation for the PSBA project; and (5) able to be evaluated.…”

Scaling Up for the “Bottom Billion”: “5×5” Implementation of Community Mental Health Care in Low-Income Regions

“…The ability to assess the impact of care and patient outcomes and to improve clinical, training, structural, and other features relevant to the effectiveness of care relies on making quality improvement practices an integral part of care. The implementation rules described here-especially the use of care pathways with specified tasks, supervision roles, and associated decision tools and the ways that such pathways capture information about and set goals for practice-greatly facilitate quality improvement, which, in turn, makes other features of care more effective, adaptive, and informed (64). Organizing mental health care from the outset in a way that allows ongoing hypothesis generating and testing and shared clarity of goals across levels and workers not only contributes to more ownership, effectiveness, and adaptability of practice but addresses the tension identified above in regard to globalized implementation and advancement of mental health care: how to establish both a general base of knowledge about the nature and names of illnesses and treatments and particular knowledge of the local context in which such treatments work and are revised.…”

Community‐Based Prevention Support: Using the Interactive Systems Framework to Facilitate Grassroots Evidenced‐Based Substance Abuse Prevention

“…In discussions about ''community-based prevention,'' there is often a lack of distinction between prevention approaches that are provided to the community by service providers and prevention approaches that are provided by the community (e.g., Biglan and Hinds 2009;Julien et al 2008). In discussions about ''community-based prevention,'' there is often a lack of distinction between prevention approaches that are provided to the community by service providers and prevention approaches that are provided by the community (e.g., Biglan and Hinds 2009;Julien et al 2008).…”

“…The use of the term community can be even more confusing in discussions about prevention support. In discussions about ''community-based prevention,'' there is often a lack of distinction between prevention approaches that are provided to the community by service providers and prevention approaches that are provided by the community (e.g., Biglan and Hinds 2009;Julien et al 2008). Both types of activities are important parts of the larger prevention picture, so it is important to recognize the similarities and differences between the two.…”