Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial

Background The implementation strategies used to enhance the implementation of interventions during efficacy and effectiveness studies are rarely reported. Tracking and reporting implementation strategies during these phases has the potential to improve future research studies and real-world impleme...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Stephanie A. Moore, Kimberly T. Arnold, Rinad S. Beidas, Tamar Mendelson
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	SAGE Publishing 2021
Materias:	Mental healing RZ400-408 Psychiatry RC435-571
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/172227d91912479bb9ec6b91e7d38e0d
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:172227d91912479bb9ec6b91e7d38e0d
record_format	dspace
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Mental healing RZ400-408 Psychiatry RC435-571
spellingShingle	Mental healing RZ400-408 Psychiatry RC435-571 Stephanie A. Moore Kimberly T. Arnold Rinad S. Beidas Tamar Mendelson Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial
description	Background The implementation strategies used to enhance the implementation of interventions during efficacy and effectiveness studies are rarely reported. Tracking and reporting implementation strategies during these phases has the potential to improve future research studies and real-world implementation. We present an exemplar of how this might be executed by specifying and reporting the implementation strategies that were used during a school-based efficacy trial, Project POWER, which tested a trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff facilitators in 29 schools. Methods Following the conclusion of the 4-year trial, core Project POWER research team members identified the implementation strategies that supported intervention delivery during the trial using an established taxonomy of school-based implementation strategies. The actors, actions, action targets, temporality, dose, and implementation outcomes were specified using established implementation strategies reporting guidelines. Results The research team identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the Project POWER trial. Most strategies fell within the categories of Train and Educate Stakeholders, Use Evaluative and Iterative Strategies, and Develop Stakeholder Interrelationships. Actors included members of the research team and partner schools. Strategies were used multiple times during the preparation and implementation phases. Action targets were most often characteristics of individuals, implementation process, and characteristics of the inner setting. Strategies predominantly targeted the implementation outcomes of fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and adoption. Conclusions This study provided evidence that implementation strategies are used and can be identified in efficacy research using a retrospective approach. Identifying and specifying implementation strategies used during the initial phases of the translational research pipeline can inform the implementation strategies that are carried forward, adapted, or discontinued in future trials and routine practice to improve implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Plain Language Abstract Intervention development and testing often occurs separately from implementation planning. However, evaluating an intervention without considering how it will be subsequently used in real-world settings is a major factor contributing to the research-to-practice gap. During the rigorous testing of interventions, research teams invest significant effort and resources to ensure their program is delivered as intended and so that beneficial outcomes can be assessed. However, the methods or techniques used to support implementation (i.e., implementation strategies) are often not measured or specified to be used and evaluated during later research or included with intervention materials that are distributed to stakeholders; this is a missed opportunity. This study identifies and describes the implementation strategies used during a large school-based research trial of a universal trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff. In collaboration with the trial’s research team, we identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the trial and defined how each strategy was used, including: the actions (i.e., things done), people who carried out the strategies, the targets of the actions, when and how often during the implementation process the strategies were used, and which implementation outcome(s) the strategy was expected to impact. Explicating implementation strategies during early phases of intervention research in schools can inform which implementation supports to carry forward, adapt, or discontinue in future studies and routine practice.
format	article
author	Stephanie A. Moore Kimberly T. Arnold Rinad S. Beidas Tamar Mendelson
author_facet	Stephanie A. Moore Kimberly T. Arnold Rinad S. Beidas Tamar Mendelson
author_sort	Stephanie A. Moore
title	Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial
title_short	Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial
title_full	Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial
title_fullStr	Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial
title_full_unstemmed	Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial
title_sort	specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial
publisher	SAGE Publishing
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/172227d91912479bb9ec6b91e7d38e0d
work_keys_str_mv	AT stephanieamoore specifyingandreportingimplementationstrategiesusedinaschoolbasedpreventionefficacytrial AT kimberlytarnold specifyingandreportingimplementationstrategiesusedinaschoolbasedpreventionefficacytrial AT rinadsbeidas specifyingandreportingimplementationstrategiesusedinaschoolbasedpreventionefficacytrial AT tamarmendelson specifyingandreportingimplementationstrategiesusedinaschoolbasedpreventionefficacytrial
_version_	1718441363827064832
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:172227d91912479bb9ec6b91e7d38e0d2021-11-08T22:33:23ZSpecifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial2633-489510.1177/26334895211047841https://doaj.org/article/172227d91912479bb9ec6b91e7d38e0d2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1177/26334895211047841https://doaj.org/toc/2633-4895Background The implementation strategies used to enhance the implementation of interventions during efficacy and effectiveness studies are rarely reported. Tracking and reporting implementation strategies during these phases has the potential to improve future research studies and real-world implementation. We present an exemplar of how this might be executed by specifying and reporting the implementation strategies that were used during a school-based efficacy trial, Project POWER, which tested a trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff facilitators in 29 schools. Methods Following the conclusion of the 4-year trial, core Project POWER research team members identified the implementation strategies that supported intervention delivery during the trial using an established taxonomy of school-based implementation strategies. The actors, actions, action targets, temporality, dose, and implementation outcomes were specified using established implementation strategies reporting guidelines. Results The research team identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the Project POWER trial. Most strategies fell within the categories of Train and Educate Stakeholders, Use Evaluative and Iterative Strategies, and Develop Stakeholder Interrelationships. Actors included members of the research team and partner schools. Strategies were used multiple times during the preparation and implementation phases. Action targets were most often characteristics of individuals, implementation process, and characteristics of the inner setting. Strategies predominantly targeted the implementation outcomes of fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and adoption. Conclusions This study provided evidence that implementation strategies are used and can be identified in efficacy research using a retrospective approach. Identifying and specifying implementation strategies used during the initial phases of the translational research pipeline can inform the implementation strategies that are carried forward, adapted, or discontinued in future trials and routine practice to improve implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Plain Language Abstract Intervention development and testing often occurs separately from implementation planning. However, evaluating an intervention without considering how it will be subsequently used in real-world settings is a major factor contributing to the research-to-practice gap. During the rigorous testing of interventions, research teams invest significant effort and resources to ensure their program is delivered as intended and so that beneficial outcomes can be assessed. However, the methods or techniques used to support implementation (i.e., implementation strategies) are often not measured or specified to be used and evaluated during later research or included with intervention materials that are distributed to stakeholders; this is a missed opportunity. This study identifies and describes the implementation strategies used during a large school-based research trial of a universal trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff. In collaboration with the trial’s research team, we identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the trial and defined how each strategy was used, including: the actions (i.e., things done), people who carried out the strategies, the targets of the actions, when and how often during the implementation process the strategies were used, and which implementation outcome(s) the strategy was expected to impact. Explicating implementation strategies during early phases of intervention research in schools can inform which implementation supports to carry forward, adapt, or discontinue in future studies and routine practice.Stephanie A. MooreKimberly T. Arnold Rinad S. BeidasTamar MendelsonSAGE PublishingarticleMental healingRZ400-408PsychiatryRC435-571ENImplementation Research and Practice, Vol 2 (2021)

Specifying and reporting implementation strategies used in a school-based prevention efficacy trial

Ejemplares similares