Article

A Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)

Northwest Permanente, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources 05/2008; 34(4):228-43.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies address the efficacy and effectiveness of health interventions, less research addresses successfully implementing and sustaining interventions. As long as efficacy and effectiveness trials are considered complete without considering implementation in nonresearch settings, the public health potential of the original investments will not be realized. A barrier to progress is the absence of a practical, robust model to help identify the factors that need to be considered and addressed and how to measure success. A conceptual framework for improving practice is needed to integrate the key features for successful program design, predictors of implementation and diffusion, and appropriate outcome measures. DEVELOPING PRISM: A comprehensive model for translating research into practice was developed using concepts from the areas of quality improvement, chronic care, the diffusion of innovations, and measures of the population-based effectiveness of translation. PRISM--the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model--evaluates how the health care program or intervention interacts with the recipients to influence program adoption, implementation, maintenance, reach, and effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The PRISM model provides a new tool for researchers and health care decision makers that integrates existing concepts relevant to translating research into practice.

8 Followers
 · 
454 Views
 · 
33 Downloads
  • Source
    • "That is, schools' ability to accept and use EBPs has been afforded less attention than has been paid to their identification (Cook & Odom, 2013; Odom, 2009). As we have mentioned, considerable literature identifies organizational context factors as one set of factors affecting implementation of EBPs (e.g., Aarons et al., 2011; Aarons & Sawitzky, 2006; Damschroder et al., 2009; Feldstein & Glasgow, 2008; 254 JOSEPH CALVIN GAGNON AND BRIAN R. BARBER Greenhalgh, Glenn, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Rogers, 2003). "
  • Source
    • "That is, schools' ability to accept and use EBPs has been afforded less attention than has been paid to their identification (Cook & Odom, 2013; Odom, 2009). As we have mentioned, considerable literature identifies organizational context factors as one set of factors affecting implementation of EBPs (e.g., Aarons et al., 2011; Aarons & Sawitzky, 2006; Damschroder et al., 2009; Feldstein & Glasgow, 2008; 254 JOSEPH CALVIN GAGNON AND BRIAN R. BARBER Greenhalgh, Glenn, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Rogers, 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alternative education settings (AES; i.e., self-contained alternative schools, therapeutic day treatment and residential schools, and juvenile corrections schools) serve youth with complicated and often serious academic and behavioral needs. The use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and practices with Best Available Evidence are necessary to increase the likelihood of long-term success for these youth. In this chapter, we define three primary categories of AES and review what we know about the characteristics of youth in these schools. Next, we discuss the current emphasis on identifying and implementing EBPs with regard to both academic interventions (i.e., reading and mathematics) and interventions addressing student behavior. In particular, we consider implementation in AES, where there are often high percentages of youth requiring special education services and who have a significant need for EBPs to succeed academically, behaviorally, and in their transition to adulthood. We focus our discussion on: (a) examining approaches to identifying EBPs; (b) providing a brief review of EBPs and Best Available Evidence in the areas of mathematics, reading, and interventions addressing student behavior for youth in AES; (c) delineating key implementation challenges in AES; and (d) providing recommendations for how to facilitate the use of EBPs in AES.
    Transition of Youth and Young Adults (Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities), Volume 28 edited by Bryan G. Cook, Melody Tankersley, Timothy J. Landrum, 01/2015: chapter Chapter 10: pages 225-271; Emerald Group Publishing Limited., ISBN: 978-1-78441-934-9
  • Source
    • "However, few of the criteria emerging from the literature are structured operationally in a tool that can easily be used by stakeholders wanting to transfer an intervention. Moreover, of the tools that have been produced [14-16], two focus on applicability [14,15,24,25], and only one actually deals with transferability in a distinct manner, albeit marginally, since only six out of 21 questions relate to transferability, and they concern only three dimensions: magnitude of health issue in local setting; magnitude of the “reach” and cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and target population characteristics [16]. These three dimensions can be found in category 1 in ASTAIRE. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health promotion interventions are often complex and not easily transferable from one setting to another. The objective of this article is to present the development of a tool to analyze the transferability of these interventions and to support their development and adaptation to new settings. The concept mapping (CM) method was used. CM is helpful for generating a list of ideas associated with a concept and grouping them statistically. Researchers and stakeholders in the health promotion field were mobilized to participate in CM and generated a first list of transferability criteria. Duplicates were eliminated, and the shortened list was returned to the experts, scored for relevance and grouped into categories. Concept maps were created, then the project team selected the definitive map. From the final list of criteria thus structured, a tool to analyze transferability was created. This tool was subsequently tested by 15 project leaders and nine experts. In all, 18 experts participated in CM. After testing, a tool, named ASTAIRE, contained 23 criteria structured into four categories: population, environment, implementation, and support for transfer. It consists of two tools--one for reporting data from primary interventions and one for analyzing interventions' transferability and supporting their adaptation to new settings. The tool is helpful for selecting the intervention to transfer into the setting being considered and for supporting its adaptation. It also facilitates new interventions to be produced with more explicit transferability criteria.
    BMC Public Health 12/2013; 13(1):1184. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-13-1184 · 2.32 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview

Download
33 Downloads
Available from