Community capacity coach: Embedded support to implement evidenced-based prevention.

Given the pervasive nature of child abuse and neglect, multilevel public health approaches are necessary. Implementation science can help in understanding the most effective ways to build infrastructure and support delivery of such approaches. In this theoretical paper, we describe the implementation of the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), an evidence-based population-level parenting program in South Carolina. While implementation science has informed how to move population-level efforts to scale, we discuss challenges that persist in practice, such as when there is a need for multiple stakeholders to understand, support, and apply implementation best practices in a systematic and consistent way. To address this challenge, we introduce the role of a Community Capacity Coach, who lives in the local community and works towards the implementation of Triple P. The Coach is responsible for bridging gaps between the local community and statewide support systems. We detail the ways in which the Coach's role aligns with key intermediary functions, and how the Coach is embedded within the larger Triple P statewide support system. We then discuss the assessment of the Coach's impact; and conclude with future directions and next steps for this role within Triple P South Carolina.

Mechanisms of change in external implementation support: A conceptual model and case examples to guide research and practice.

Background: External implementation support (EIS) is a well-recognized feature of implementation science and practice, often under related terms such as technical assistance and implementation facilitation. Existing models of EIS have gaps related to addressing practice outcomes at both individual and organizational levels, connecting practice activities to intended outcomes, or grounding in well-established theories of behavior and organization change. Moreover, there have been calls to clarify the mechanisms of change through which EIS influences related outcomes. Method: In this article, we theorize about mechanisms of change within EIS. Our theorizing process aligns with the approach advocated by Kislov et al. We aim to consolidate prior EIS literature, combining related constructs from previous empirical and conceptual work while drawing on our extensive EIS experience to develop a higher-order, midrange theory of change. Results: Our theory of change is empirically and practically informed, conceptually situated within an established grand theory of change, and guided by eight practice principles and social cognitive theory. The theory of change proposes 10 core practice components as mechanisms of change within EIS. When used according to underlying theory and principles, they are believed to contribute to favorable practice outcomes at individual, team, organizational, and system levels. The model offers flexibility by recognizing the need for sequential support processes and the demand to practice in dynamic and responsive ways. Case examples are presented to illustrate major themes and patterns of the model in action. Conclusions: The proposed model is intended to support prospective EIS studies by conceptualizing discernable practice components with hypothesized relationships to proximal and distal practice outcomes. The model can be behaviorally operationalized to compliment and extend competency-based approaches to implementation support practitioner (ISP) training and coaching. Over time, the model should be refined based on new empirical findings and contributions from ISPs across the field.

There are few models that help us understand how external support providers work with organizational, system, and community partners to improve their efforts to implement innovative programs and practices. Existing models typically describe characteristics and features of the process but lack grounding in well-established theories of behavior and organizational change. In this paper, we theorize about mechanisms of change within the support process, which we label core practice components, and explain how their use might improve implementation efforts through shorter- and longer-term practice outcomes. We believe that our model holds promise for informing future advancements in both research and practice. Foremost, the core practice components lend themselves to behavioral definitions and thus being observed and reported in action. In research, this will allow the relationships we propose in our model to be tested and refined over time, resulting in an incremental accumulation of knowledge. In practice, a greater understanding of core practice components and their relationships to key practice outcomes offers ways to enhance training and coaching activities for external support providers. The model may also aid support providers to more effectively navigate the support process and plan more timely and effective support strategies.

Trajectory of external implementation support activities across two states in the United States: A descriptive study.

Background: Reporting on strategies to advance implementation outcomes is imperative. The current study reports descriptive information about external implementation support (EIS) provided over 5 years to 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family supports. Regional support teams operating through the Implementation Capacity for Triple P (ICTP) projects employed core practice components (CPCs) for EIS as proposed by Aldridge et al. and further operationalized by members of The Impact Center at FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill. Method: Practice activities associated with CPCs were developed and iteratively refined across the study period. ICTP regional support teams systematically tracked their use of CPCs and related activities following each substantive support interaction. Tracking included the duration of time a CPC was employed and the use of specific practice activities associated with that CPC. Data were aggregated by month of the relationship to account for differential start dates across regions. Results: From November 2016 through December 2021, ICTP support teams tracked 749 support interactions with Triple P regions in North Carolina and South Carolina. Monthly support decreased year over year, though dose varied considerably. Patterns of CPC use indicated a high dose of "foundational" and "co-design" CPCs early, followed by a blended and more diverse use thereafter, with some notable trends. Practice activities considered essential to influencing intended practice outcomes were characterized by higher rates of use. Like CPCs, practice activities were used dynamically across the study period. Conclusions: This descriptive study offers a case study for how EIS might be operationalized, tracked, and employed. Findings suggest several interpretations that might refine our understanding and use of EIS. Although the nature of this practical report precludes generalizability of findings, directions for future research and practice are discussed.

More needs to be known about how external support providers work with organizational, system, and community partners to improve their efforts to implement innovative programs and practices. Although a handful of models of external support have emerged in the literature, support strategies or activities are not often tracked systematically or prospectively. In the current study, we report on the adoption, operationalization, and use of a recently proposed model of external support across 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family interventions. Teams of external support providers tracked their activities using the model across more than 5 years. Results provide a description of what external support might look like across long-term support engagements, noting key patterns about dose of support and use of activities that might be responsible for influencing intended support outcomes. The study offers several findings that might refine our understanding and use of external support strategies. In addition, the study lays groundwork for examining additional research questions, such as the feasibility of support processes and whether and how support activities influence support outcomes.

Is the Concept of Self-Regulation Useful for Supporting Effective Implementation in Community Settings?

The literature and utility of self-regulation extends beyond individuals; a critical factor for successful and sustainable implementation of evidence-based programs in a community setting may be the capacity of teams to self-regulate implementation processes. The conceptual foundation of this proposal is explored and definitions of the five dimensions of self-regulation for implementation processes are provided. Practice examples illustrate how the provision of external implementation support to build self-regulatory capacity among implementation teams adopting and scaling-up EBPs in the local community setting has shaped and refined the proposed definitions to better reflect the work on-the-ground. The role of external implementation support providers in developing implementation team self-regulation is explored and practice strategies to promote self-regulation are provided. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool.

BACKGROUND: Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects. METHODS: Implementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool's usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists. RESULTS: Thirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool's purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: T-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science.

Active involved community partnerships: co-creating implementation infrastructure for getting to and sustaining social impact.

Active involved community partnerships (AICPs) are essential to co-create implementation infrastructure and translate evidence into real-world practice. Across varied forms, AICPs cultivate community and tribal members as agents of change, blending research and organizational knowledge with relationships, context, culture, and local wisdom. Unlike selective engagement, AICPs enable active involvement of partners in the ongoing process of implementation and sustainability. This includes defining the problem, developing solutions, detecting practice changes, aligning organizational supports, and nurturing shared responsibility, accountability, and ownership for implementation. This paper builds on previously established active implementation and scaling functions by outlining key AICP functions to close the research-practice gap. Part of a federal initiative, California Partners for Permanency (CAPP) integrated AICP functions for implementation and system change to reduce disproportionality and disparities in long-term foster care. This paper outlines their experience defining and embedding five AICP functions: (1) relationship-building; (2) addressing system barriers; (3) establishing culturally relevant supports and services; (4) meaningful involvement in implementation; and (5) ongoing communication and feedback for continuous improvement. Planning for social impact requires the integration of AICP with other active implementation and scaling functions. Through concrete examples, authors bring multilevel AICP roles to life and discuss implications for implementation research and practice.

Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: embedding active implementation and scaling functions.

Traditional efforts to translate evidence-based prevention strategies to communities, at scale, have not often produced socially significant outcomes or the local capacity needed to sustain them. A key gap in many efforts is the transformation of community prevention systems to support and sustain local infrastructure for the active implementation, scaling, and continuous improvement of effective prevention strategies. In this paper, we discuss (1) the emergence of applied implementation science as an important type 3-5 translational extension of traditional type 2 translational prevention science, (2) active implementation and scaling functions to support the full and effective use of evidence-based prevention strategies in practice, (3) the organization and alignment of local infrastructure to embed active implementation and scaling functions within community prevention systems, and (4) policy and practice implications for greater social impact and sustainable use of effective prevention strategies.