Interagency collaborative team model for capacity building to scale-up evidence-based practice
Open accessAbstract
Background System-wide scale up of evidence-based practice (EBP) is a complex process. Yet, few strategic approaches exist to support EBP implementation and sustainment across a service system. Building on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) implementation framework, we developed and are testing the Interagency Collaborative Team (ICT) process model to implement an evidence-based child neglect intervention (i.e., SafeCare®) within a large children's service system. The ICT model emphasizes the role of local agency collaborations in creating structural supports for successful implementation.Methods We describe the ICT model and present preliminary qualitative results from use of the implementation model in one large scale EBP implementation. Qualitative interviews were conducted to assess challenges in building system, organization, and home visitor collaboration and capacity to implement the EBP. Data collection and analysis centered on EBP implementation issues, as well as the experiences of home visitors under the ICT model.Results Six notable issues relating to implementation process emerged from participant interviews, including: (a) initial commitment and collaboration among stakeholders, (b) leadership, (c) communication, (d) practice fit with local context, (e) ongoing negotiation and problem solving, and (f) early successes. These issues highlight strengths and areas for development in the ICT model.Conclusions Use of the ICT model led to sustained and widespread use of SafeCare in one large county. Although some aspects of the implementation model may benefit from enhancement, qualitative findings suggest that the ICT process generates strong structural supports for implementation and creates conditions in which tensions between EBP structure and local contextual variations can be resolved in ways that support the expansion and maintenance of an EBP while preserving potential for public health benefit.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Emerging evidence indicates that the Interagency Collaborative Team process can help align the structure of evidence-based practices with local contextual variations.
“Emerging evidence suggests that the ICT process can facilitate the alignment of the structure of evidence-based practices with local contextual variations (Hurlburt et al., 2014).”
From User‐centered design for psychosocial intervention development and implementation. (2016) · cites this paper as Hurlburt et al., 2014
In scaling-out SafeCare, a new interagency seed team was formed from diverse stakeholders that became the source of knowledge, model expertise, and leadership that allowed this EBI to be delivered with fidelity and to be sustained over time.
“In scaling-out SafeCare, a new interagency “seed team” was formed from diverse stakeholders that became the source of knowledge, model expertise, and leadership that allowed this EBI to be delivered with fidelity and to be sustained over time.”
From “Scaling-out” evidence-based interventions to new populations or new health care delivery systems (2017) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 132
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Backer TE 2000 The failure of success: Challenges of disseminating effective substance abuse prevention programs Journal of Community Psychology 28 3 363 373
- Authors
- Hurlburt, M., Aarons, G. A., Fettes, D., Willging, C., Gunderson, L., & Chaffin, M. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Pacific Institute For Research and Evaluation (US)
- University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hurlburt, Michael
- ORCID
- Venue
- Children and Youth Services Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 39
- Pages
- 160-168
- ISSN
- 0190-7409 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4976939
- OpenAlex
- W1999727023
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 15.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Children and Youth Services Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (2R01MH072961, P30MH074678)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Keywords
- evidence-based practice, scale-up, capacity building, SafeCare, home visitors, inter-agency cooperation, implementation sustainment, structural support, stakeholder collaboration, leadership, contextual fit
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