an integrated implementation support logic model to achieve …€¦ · 2017 global implementation...
TRANSCRIPT
2017 Global Implementation ConferenceJune 20th, 2017
Byron J. Powell1, Will Aldridge2, Renée Boothroyd2, Ron Prinz3, Wendy Morgan2, Claire Veazey2, & Desiree Murray2
1Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill2FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
3Parenting & Family Research Center, University of South Carolina
An Integrated Implementation Support Logic Model to Achieve
System‐wide Outcomes
Learning Objectives
1. Describe the hypothesized relationships between co‐creation partner support, local implementation capacity and performance, system‐wide implementation outcomes, and system‐wide intervention outcomes.
2. Develop an applied understanding of this implementation support logic model through examples of its use in practice to support community‐wide scale‐up of Triple P in North Carolina.
2
Public health
app
roach to
parenting and family sup
port
Triple PPositive Parenting Program System of Interventions
Triple P – Positive Parenting Program in North Carolina
4
All children grow up in safe and nurturing environments, with stable relationships that promote their emotional and behavioral health.
State’s Vision Statement:
To strengthen caregivers to become more positive catalysts of healthy child development acknowledging that every child deserves to grow‐up in safe and nurturing environments, with stable relationships that promote their emotional and behavioral health.
State’s Mission Statement:
The North Carolina Implementation Capacity for Triple P (NCIC‐TP) Project
1. Through research and evaluation, to inform state and local planning processes for impact and sustainability.
2. To utilize implementation and improvement sciences to help local leaders and teams practically increase sustainable capacity and the performance impact of their community‐wide Triple P initiatives.
3. To measure and improve our provision of external implementation support to increase contributions to locally sustainable capacity and performance.
5
Scarcity of Implementation Logic Models
• Logic models can be an effective approach to plan, manage, and evaluate large‐scale implementation efforts (Goeschel et al., 2012)
• Few logic models of applied implementation work
6
Chinman et al. (2016)
Implementation Outcome
Optimization
Population‐levelOutcomes
Co‐Creation Partner Support
Sustainment
Integrated Implementation Support Logic Model
Chinman et al. (2016); Proctor et al. (2011)
Practitioners' Responsive & Effective Delivery of
Triple P
NC Triple P State Learning Collaborative
Parent and Family Wellbeing &
Self‐Regulation
Supp
ort
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback
Supp
ort
Supp
ort
Triple P America
Intermediary Organizations
Cross‐Agency State
Leadership Team
Cascading Logic Model of
Implementation Support
Integrated Implementation Support Logic Model
To view an animated overview of the NCIC‐TP Implementation Support Logic Model, visit:
http://ncic.fpg.unc.edu/ncic‐tp‐simulation‐lab‐intro
10
Next Steps
• Continue to refine the logic model• Moving away from “siloed” model?
• Select candidate measures and develop a user‐friendly measurement guide
• Complements broader evaluation effort• Suggests a menu of (hopefully) pragmatic measurement options
11
The Duke Endowmentwww.dukeendowment.org
NC Division of Public Healthhttp://publichealth.nc.gov/
NC Division of Social Serviceswww.ncdhhs.gov/divisions/dss
Other NCIC-TP Team Members
Robin Jenkins, Ph.D., Co-I, UNC-CHLaTanya Moore, Ph.D. , Co-I, UNC-CHRebecca Roppolo, MPH, Evaluation &
Improvement Specialist, UNC-CH
For More Information
Special Thanks to:
Disclosure: Ron Prinz, Ph.D., is a consultant to Triple P International, which is the technology transfer entity commissioned by the University of Queensland to disseminate the Triple P system, and to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is involved in
implementation/dissemination projects related to Triple P.12
Will [email protected]
Byron [email protected]
Visit the NCIC‐TP Website: http://ncic.fpg.unc.edu
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 1
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 2
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 3
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 4
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 5
Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., & Slaughter, M. E. (2016). Can implementation support help community‐based settings better deliver evidence‐based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science, 11(1), 78, doi:10.1186/s13012‐016‐0446‐y.
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 6
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Veazey, C. A., Powell, B. J., Murray, D. W., & Prinz, R. J. (2016, December). Ensuring Active Implementation Support for North Carolina Counties Scaling the Triple P System of Interventions. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science. 2016;11(1):78.
Co-CreationMetz & Albers (2014) What does it take? How federal initiatives can support the implementation of evidence-based programs to improve outcomes for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 592-596.
Metz A. Implementation brief: The potential of co-creation in implementation science. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;2015.
Local Implementation Capacity & PerformanceChinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science. 2016;11(1):78.
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Fleming, W. O., Lofts Jarboe, K., Morrow, J., Ritchie, G. F., & Sebian, J. (2016). Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: Embedding active implementation and scaling functions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6, 135-144. doi:10.1007/s13142-015-0351-y
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 7
Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active Implementation Frameworks for Program Success. Zero to Three, 32, 11-18.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 951-976.
Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community–university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5(1), 31-39.
Triple P System OptimizationProctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011;38(2):65-76.
Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review. 1998;18(1):23-45.
Mihalic S. The importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Youth. 2004;4:83 - 105.
Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science : IS, 8, 1-11, doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 7
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Veazey, C. A., Powell, B. J., Murray, D. W., & Prinz, R. J. (2016, December). Ensuring Active Implementation Support for North Carolina Counties Scaling the Triple P System of Interventions. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science. 2016;11(1):78.
Co-CreationMetz & Albers (2014) What does it take? How federal initiatives can support the implementation of evidence-based programs to improve outcomes for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 592-596.
Metz A. Implementation brief: The potential of co-creation in implementation science. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;2015.
Local Implementation Capacity & PerformanceChinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science. 2016;11(1):78.
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Fleming, W. O., Lofts Jarboe, K., Morrow, J., Ritchie, G. F., & Sebian, J. (2016). Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: Embedding active implementation and scaling functions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6, 135-144. doi:10.1007/s13142-015-0351-y
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 8
Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active Implementation Frameworks for Program Success. Zero to Three, 32, 11-18.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 951-976.
Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community–university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5(1), 31-39.
Triple P System OptimizationProctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011;38(2):65-76.
Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review. 1998;18(1):23-45.
Mihalic S. The importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Youth. 2004;4:83 - 105.
Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science : IS, 8, 1-11, doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 8
Concept of a Cascading Logic Model: Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active Implementation Frameworks for Program Success. Zero to Three, 32, 11-18.
REVISIT:1. Through research and evaluation, to inform state and local planning processes for impact and
sustainability. • Talk about the measures we’re trying to make available on the website for the NC Learning
Collaborative and State Leadership Team, which is re-designing the Statewide Triple P Evaluation.
• Talk about helping Community Triple P Coalitions in two demonstration counties ask relevant questions based on the logic model and utilize appropriate measures to conduct feasible evaluation for local improvement.
2. To utilize the implementation and improvement sciences to help local leaders and teams practically increase sustainable capacity and the performance impact of their community-wide Triple P initiatives. • Talk about helping (via direct implementation support) Community Triple P Coalitions in
two demonstration counties build local implementation capacity and performance, and optimize outcomes.
3. To measure and improve our provision of external implementation support to increase contributions to locally sustainable capacity and performance.• Talk about how we’re conceptualizing and will be piloting core practice components of
direct implementation support, as a co-creation partner, to build local implementation capacity and performance within Community Triple P Coalitions in two demonstration counties.
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 9
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Veazey, C. A., Powell, B. J., Murray, D. W., & Prinz, R. J. (2016, December). Ensuring Active Implementation Support for North Carolina Counties Scaling the Triple P System of Interventions. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science. 2016;11(1):78.
Co-CreationMetz & Albers (2014) What does it take? How federal initiatives can support the implementation of evidence-based programs to improve outcomes for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 592-596.
Metz A. Implementation brief: The potential of co-creation in implementation science. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;2015.
Local Implementation Capacity & PerformanceChinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science. 2016;11(1):78.
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Fleming, W. O., Lofts Jarboe, K., Morrow, J., Ritchie, G. F., & Sebian, J. (2016). Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: Embedding active implementation and scaling functions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6, 135-144. doi:10.1007/s13142-015-0351-y
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 10
Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active Implementation Frameworks for Program Success. Zero to Three, 32, 11-18.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 951-976.
Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community–university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5(1), 31-39.
Triple P System OptimizationProctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011;38(2):65-76.
Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review. 1998;18(1):23-45.
Mihalic S. The importance of implementation fidelity. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Youth. 2004;4:83 - 105.
Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science : IS, 8, 1-11, doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 10
Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., & Slaughter, M. E. (2016). Can implementation support help community‐based settings better deliver evidence‐based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science, 11(1), 78, doi:10.1186/s13012‐016‐0446‐y.
Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 11
12Powell, Aldridge, Boothroyd, Prinz, Morgan, Veazey, & Murray (2017, June) 12