Cited by 73Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

Adaptation and Fidelity: a Recipe Analogy for Achieving Both in Population Scale Implementation

Kemp, Lynn·2016·Prevention Science

Abstract

Balancing adherence to fidelity of evidence-based programs and adaptation to local context is one of the key debates in the adoption and implementation of effective programs. Concern about maintaining fidelity to achieve outcomes can result in replication of research-based models that can be a poor fit with the real world. Equally, unplanned adaptation can result in program drift away from the core elements needed to achieve outcomes. To support implementation of the Maternal Early Childhood Sustained Home-visiting (MECSH) program in multiple sites in three countries, an analogy was developed to identify how both fidelity and adaptation can be managed and successfully achieved. This article presents the Commonsense Cookery Book Basic Plain Cake with Variations recipe analogy to articulate the dual requirements of both fidelity and adaptation to achieve quality implementation of the MECSH program. Components classified by the analogy include identification of core ingredients, methods, and equipment that contribute to fundamental outcomes and fidelity to the evidence-based program, and a planned, collaborative approach to identification of needed variations to suit locally sourced capacity, needs, and tastes. Quality is achieved by identifying and measuring the core ingredients and the variations. Sourcing local ingredients and honoring of context support sustainability of quality practice. Using this analogy has assisted adopters of the MECSH program to understand that effective implementation requires uncompromised commitment to expectations of fidelity to the core components and methods; planned, proactive adaptation; systematic monitoring of both core program and agreed variations; and local ownership and sustainability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11121-016-0642-7

Cites

37 of 37 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

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kemp, L.
Affiliations
Liverpool Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Kemp, Lynn
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2016-03-11
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
429-438
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W2295416235
Cited by
73
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
12.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Prevention Science (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
implementation fidelity, program adaptation, evidence-based programs, implementation, home visits, program monitoring, local ownership, sustainability, maternal and child health
MeSH terms
Humans, Program Evaluation, Program Development, Evidence-Based Practice

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