Predictors of the Decision to Adopt Motivational Interviewing in Community Health Settings

Williams, Jessica R.; Blais, Marissa Puckett; Banks, Duren; Dusablon, Tracy; Williams, W. Jon; Hennessy, Kevin D.

doi:10.1007/s11414-013-9357-8

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To this end, they provided users with both internal and external validity data. Such an approach is consistent with research showing providers are more likely to implement evidence-based practices if they have a role in the adoption decision process [ 9 , 10 ]. The 2015 reviews, in contrast, were designed to rank programs as being more effective for the population based primarily on internal validity and effect size; contextual and individual patient factors play little role in its criteria.…”

Section: Commentarysupporting

confidence: 80%

Suspension of the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: the importance of adhering to the evidence

Green-Hennessy

2018

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently the United States Assistant Secretary of Mental Health and Substance Use disclosed having suspended the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, stating it was so deficient in both rigor and breadth that it must be replaced. However, a closer examination of her claims about the Registry indicates many of them to be inaccurate. Contrary to her assertions, the Registry is not devoid of medication-assisted treatments for opioid use; nor does it contain but a scant few interventions related to schizophrenia and psychosis. Moreover, many of her criticisms regarding rigor pertain to reviews completed since late 2015, when the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration altered key aspects of the Registry. In contrast to reviews generated under the 2007 rules, these newer reviews rely on fewer references, incorporate less expert input, are more likely to be based exclusively on gray literature, and are no longer required either to provide dissemination readiness information or meet certain minimum research quality standards. However, only 123 (25.7%) of the 479 Registry interventions have been reviewed solely using the problematic 2015 criteria, with the remaining 356 interventions having a review which use the 2007 guidelines. Yet, rather than address the agency’s recent missteps and expand the Registry’s content coverage, the agency appears to have decided to invest considerable resources into replacing it, relying heavily on expert consensus versus empirical data in its initial attempt to do so. This raises questions about the agency’s current commitment to evidence-based practice.

show abstract

Section: Commentarysupporting

confidence: 80%

Suspension of the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: the importance of adhering to the evidence

Green-Hennessy

2018

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An unsupportive workplace culture was mentioned by practitioners across all four countries as an organizational barrier to the D&I of EBCDP, similarly described in studies from the United States and Australia [ 20 , 23 , 51 , 77 , 79 ]. However, there were differences by country relating to specific characteristics of this unsupportive culture as well as other organizational barriers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A qualitative exploration of contextual factors that influence dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention across four countries

Budd

deRuyter

Wang

et al. 2018

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLittle is known about the contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based chronic disease interventions in the United States and in other countries. This study sought to better understand the contextual similarities and differences influencing the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States.MethodsBetween February and July 2015, investigators in each country conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews (total N = 50) with chronic disease prevention practitioners, using interview guides that covered multiple domains (e.g., use of and access to EBCDP interventions, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EBCDP interventions).ResultsPractitioners across the four countries reported only a few programmatic areas in which repositories of EBCDP interventions were used within their workplace. Across countries, academic journals were the most frequently cited channels for accessing EBCDP interventions, though peers were commonly cited as the most useful. Lack of time and heavy workload were salient personal barriers among practitioners in Australia and the United States, while lack of expertise in developing and implementing EBCDP interventions was more pertinent among practitioners from Brazil and China. Practitioners in all four countries described an organizational culture that was unsupportive of EBCDP. Practitioners in Brazil, China and the United States cited an inadequate number of staff support to implement EBCDP interventions. A few practitioners in Australia and China cited lack of access to evidence. Partnerships were emphasized as key facilitators to implementing EBCDP interventions across all countries.ConclusionsThis study is novel in its cross-country qualitative exploration of multilevel constructs of EBCDP dissemination and implementation. The interviews produced rich findings about many contextual similarities and differences with EBCDP that can inform both cross-country and country-specific research and practice to address barriers and improve EBCDP implementation among the four countries long-term.

show abstract

“…knowledge of and comfort with EBNCDP) and organizationallevel (e.g. processes and protocols for developing interventions) contextual factors [17][18][19][20][21][22]. Relatively little attention has been focused on political contextual factors (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring political influences on evidence-based non-communicable disease prevention across four countries

Furtado

Budd

Ying

et al. 2018

Health Education Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementation of evidence-based practices can improve efficiency and effectiveness of public health efforts. Few studies have explored the political contextual factors that impact implementation of evidence-based non-communicable disease prevention (EBNCDP). This study aimed to do so in Australia, Brazil, China and the United States. Investigators conducted 10-13 qualitative, semi-structured interviews of public health practitioners working in functionally similar public health organizations in each country (total N = 50). Study participants were identified through purposive sampling and interviews were structured around an interview guide covering six domains related to EBNCDP. Interviewees from all four countries identified funding as the primary politically-influenced barrier to implementing EBNCDP. Similarly widespread barriers included government funding priorities that shift based on who is in power and the difficulty of convincing policy-makers and funders that non-communicable disease prevention is a wise investment of political capital. Policymakers who are not evidence-driven was another common barrier even in the United States and Australia, where EBNCDP is more established. Findings suggest that political contextual factors influence EBNCDP and vary to an extent by country, though certain factors seem to be universal. This can aid public health practitioners, political leaders, and policymakers in advocating for conditions and policies that encourage evidence-based practice.

show abstract

Predictors of the Decision to Adopt Motivational Interviewing in Community Health Settings

Cited by 9 publications

References 44 publications

Suspension of the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: the importance of adhering to the evidence

Suspension of the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: the importance of adhering to the evidence

A qualitative exploration of contextual factors that influence dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention across four countries

Exploring political influences on evidence-based non-communicable disease prevention across four countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About