School Coordinators’ Perceptions of Organizational Readiness Is Associated with Implementation Fidelity in a Smoking Prevention Program: Findings from the X:IT II Study

Abstract

School organizational readiness to implement interventions may play an important role for the actual obtained implementation level, and knowledge about organizational readiness prior to intervention start can help pinpoint how to optimize support to the schools. In this study, we applied a novel heuristic, R = MC2 to assess school organizational readiness prior to implementation of a multicomponent smoking prevention program. Furthermore, we examined the association to actual implementation after the first year of study. We used questionnaire data from school coordinators at 40 schools in Denmark who had accepted to implement the multi-component smoking prevention intervention—X:IT II—in the school year 2017–2018 including three main components: (1) Rules on smoke-free school time, (2) A smoke-free curriculum, and (3) Parental involvement. On behalf of the school, a school coordinator answered a baseline questionnaire about the organizational readiness and a follow-up questionnaire about implementation of the three components after first year of study. Readiness was measured by summing aspects of motivation (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, and priority), general capacity (culture, climate, and staff capacity), and innovation-specific capacity (knowledge, skills, and abilities). Based on school coordinators’ perceptions, almost all schools had good general capacity while the other two areas of readiness varied across schools; overall, 56.8% of schools (N = 25) had good motivation for implementing the X:IT II intervention and 61.3% (N = 27) had high innovation-specific capacity. Half of the schools had high overall readiness defined as high motivation and high innovation-specific capacity. Schools with high overall readiness implemented the rules on smoke-free school time, smoke-free curriculum, and parental involvement to a higher degree than schools with low overall readiness. All participating schools possessed sufficient levels of general capacity, e.g., a well-functioning organizational culture and sufficient staff capacity. High levels of motivation and innovation-specific capacity were positively associated with the schools’ actual implementation of the main intervention components. This way of conceptualizing and measuring organizational readiness may be useful in future studies, i.e., in studies where enhancing readiness is a main objective.

Management of Diabetes during School Hours: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study in Denmark

“…The data collection was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, where restrictions burdened the daily management in schools, and new teaching situations could have affected the school's willingness to participate. Still, primary schools tend to be busy in general, and similar participation rates have been found in other Danish studies [21,22]. Our analysis of nonrespondents showed there were more non-respondents in the regions close to the capitol.…”

Organizational readiness and implementation fidelity of an early childhood education and care-specific physical activity policy intervention: findings from the Play Active trial

“…Evidence from the health and education sectors reports high organizational readiness enables better implementation of health interventions. 18–20 , 45 , 46 More recently, Metz and colleagues 47 used an ECEC-specific lens with implementation science concepts to suggest that higher levels of organizational readiness may point to the development of an ‘hospitable environment’ 47 for successful implementation of, and fidelity to, evidence-based interventions in the ECEC setting. In addition, previous work has examined the use of strategies to increase acceptability and appropriateness of childhood obesity interventions.…”

“…The purposeful creation of an hospitable environment through organizational readiness strategies (e.g. two-way communication, quality improvement processes and time for professional development) in ECEC services may be necessary to support end-user engagement with implementation, 49 promote intervention fidelity 46 and to support ownership of the resultant practice changes. 45 Play Active’s use of such strategies (e.g.…”

Supporting Adolescents with Mental Health Problems in Secondary Education: Feasibility of a Supported Education Intervention

“…Second, considering the factors related to the school environment that limited EPs’ implementation of the intervention in the current study, successful and sustainable implementation in the school environment requires a close collaboration and a strong collaborative process with schools. For instance, potential barriers due to the schools’ organization of support or their policies regarding support need to be thoroughly examined before the start of an implementation study to identify the necessary actions to create favorable conditions for implementation [ 50 ]. Third, several EP dropped out of the study due to factors such as sick leave, change of jobs, or lack of time.…”