Cited by 68Health Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and DevelopmentInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

Partnerships for the design, conduct, and analysis of effectiveness, and implementation research: Experiences of the Prevention Science and Methodology Group

Open access
Brown, C. Hendricks, Kellam, Sheppard G., Kaupert, Sheila, Muthén, Bengt O., Wang, Wei, Muthén, Linda K., Chamberlain, Patricia, PoVey, Craig L. +9 more·2012·Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research

Abstract

What progress prevention research has made comes through strategic partnerships with communities and institutions that host this research, as well as professional and practice networks that facilitate the diffusion of knowledge about prevention. We discuss partnership issues related to the design, analysis, and implementation of prevention research and especially how rigorous designs, including random assignment, get resolved through a partnership between community stakeholders, institutions, and researchers. These partnerships shape not only study design, but they determine the data that can be collected and how results and new methods are disseminated. We also examine a second type of partnership to improve the implementation of effective prevention programs into practice. We draw on social networks to studying partnership formation and function. The experience of the Prevention Science and Methodology Group, which itself is a networked partnership between scientists and methodologists, is highlighted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10488-011-0387-3

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Evidence-based programs that have progressed to implementation and translation stages report that effective partnerships with community-based, school, or implementing agencies are critical to their success.

    “Indeed, evidence-based programs that have progressed to implementation and translation stages report that effective partnerships with community-based, school, or implementing agencies are critical to their success [11, 17, 18].”

    From Social Network Analysis for Program Implementation (2015) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Network density has been posited to be advantageous for spreading new information but deleterious when accepting new information from the outside.

    “Even this suggestion must be tentative however since even the most basic measure, network density, has been posited to be advantageous for spreading new information but deleterious when accepting new information from the outside [11].”

    From Social Network Analysis for Program Implementation (2015) · cites this paper as [11]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Valente TW Models and methods for innovation diffusion 2005 Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, C. H., Kellam, S. G., Kaupert, S., Muthén, B. O., Wang, W., Muthén, L. K., Chamberlain, P., PoVey, C. L., Cady, R., Valente, T. W., Ogihara, M., Prado, G. J., Pantin, H. M., Gallo, C. G., Szapocznik, J., Czaja, S. J., & McManus, J. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • Muthén & Muthén (United States) (US)
  • Oregon Department of Human Services (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Brown, C. Hendricks
Venue
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Published
2011-12-10
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
301-316
ISSN
  • 0894-587X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3289
OpenAlex
W2007817159
Cited by
68
References
101
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076158, R01MH040859)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA027828)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
prevention research, research collaboration, community partnerships, prevention science, implementation research, prevention program implementation, random assignment, research dissemination, knowledge diffusion, social networks, partnership development
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Mental Health Services, Organizations, Research Design, Research Personnel, United States, Program Evaluation, Information Dissemination, Community-Based Participatory Research, Public-Private Sector Partnerships

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