Cited by 423Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

Toward an Evidence‐Based System for Innovation Support for Implementing Innovations with Quality: Tools, Training, Technical Assistance, and Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement

Wandersman, Abraham, Chien, Victoria H., Katz, Jason·2012·American Journal of Community Psychology

Abstract

An individual or organization that sets out to implement an innovation (e.g., a new technology, program, or policy) generally requires support. In the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, a Support System should work with Delivery Systems (national, state and/or local entities such as health and human service organizations, community‐based organizations, schools) to enhance their capacity for quality implementation of innovations. The literature on the Support ystem has been under‐researched and under‐developed. This article begins to conceptualize theory, research, and action for an evidence‐based system for innovation support (EBSIS). EBSIS describes key priorities for strengthening the science and practice of support. The major goal of EBSIS is to enhance the research and practice of support in order to build capacity in the Delivery System for implementing innovations with quality, and thereby, help the Delivery System achieve outcomes. EBSIS is guided by a logic model that includes four key support components: tools, training, technical assistance, and quality assurance/quality improvement . EBSIS uses the Getting To Outcomes approach to accountability to aid the identification and synthesis of concepts, tools, and evidence for support. We conclude with some discussion of the current status of EBSIS and possible next steps, including the development of collaborative researcher‐practitioner‐funder‐consumer partnerships to accelerate accumulation of knowledge on the Support System. Special Issue: Advances in Bridging Research and Practice Using the Interactive System Framework for Dissemination and Implementation; Guest Editors: Abraham Wandersman, Paul Flaspohler, Catherine A. Lesesne, Richard Puddy; Action Editor: Emilie Phillips Smith

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10464-012-9509-7

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wandersman, A., Chien, V. H., & Katz, J.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Wandersman, Abraham
Venue
American Journal of Community Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04-27
Volume
50
Issue
3-4
Pages
445-459
ISSN
  • 0091-0562 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2770
OpenAlex
W2159762301
Cited by
422
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 5
FWCI
31.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Community Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
innovation support, implementation research, Interactive Systems Framework, delivery systems, quality assurance, quality improvement, technical assistance, training, implementation tools, accountability, research-practice collaboration, capacity building
MeSH terms
Humans, Organizational Innovation, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Program Evaluation, Program Development, Models, Organizational, Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review