Developing a Community Science Research Agenda for Building Community Capacity for Effective Preventive Interventions

Abstract

Research has shown that prevention programming can improve community health when implemented well. There are examples of successful prevention in local communities, however many continue to face significant challenges, demonstrating a gap between science and practice. Common strategies within the United States to address this gap are available (e.g., trainings), but lack outcomes. Building community capacity to implement high quality prevention can help communities achieve positive health outcomes, thereby narrowing the gap. While there is ample research on the efficacy of evidence-based programs, there is little on how to improve community capacity to improve prevention quality. In order to narrow the gap, a new model of research-one based in Community Science-is suggested that improves the latest theoretical understanding of community capacity and evaluates technologies designed to enhance it. In this article, we describe this model and suggest a research agenda that can lead to improved outcomes at the local level.

The U.S. Drug Policy Landscape: Insights and Opportunities for Improving the View

“…Evaluations of community prevention capabilities and implementation procedures in dozens of cities throughout the United States demonstrate that prevention is hard to do well and requires tools that many communities do not have at their disposal (Chinman et al, 2004(Chinman et al, , 2005(Chinman et al, , 2008. In particular, communities need the right support and guidance to assist them in the selection of prevention programming that is suitable for their own unique issues, as well as technical assistance in the implementation of the chosen programming.…”

Community‐Based Interventions and Services

“…For example, Chinman, Hannah, Wandersman, Ebener, Hunter, and Imm (2005) identified four broad factors that influence whether communities adopt, create, and implement evidencebased services. First, implementing high-quality service programs is a complex process that requires considerably more knowledge and skill than is needed to simply follow a program manual.…”

“…But these strategies alone have been only partly successful. Chinman et al (2005) reviewed a variety of training programs in substance abuse prevention, for example, and concluded that while such programs were helpful, their content was not always appropriate to the specific local context and there were often local barriers to incorporating the information into practice. Alternatively, having an intermediate set of professionals provide direct, hands-on technical assistance similarly had limited effectiveness (Chinman et al, 2005).…”

“…Chinman et al (2005) reviewed a variety of training programs in substance abuse prevention, for example, and concluded that while such programs were helpful, their content was not always appropriate to the specific local context and there were often local barriers to incorporating the information into practice. Alternatively, having an intermediate set of professionals provide direct, hands-on technical assistance similarly had limited effectiveness (Chinman et al, 2005). Such technical assistance, even when provided without cost, was not always welcomed at the local level, some minimal level of community capacity was required to make full use of such assistance, and community organizations seemed better able to utilize some forms of assistance (e.g., planning, implementation, organizational maintenance) than others (e.g., evaluation procedures, data analysis).…”

“…Chinman et al (2005) suggest that this process must have genuine community involvement and commitment; the community must possess skills in a variety of domains; resources must be identified, acquired, and managed; and there must be a collective sense of community efficacy or power to manage the skills and resources and direct them toward successful outcomes.…”