A case study of a theory-based method for identifying and reporting core functions and forms of evidence-based interventions
Open accessAbstract
Adaptation of existing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to improve their fit in new contexts is common. A critical first step in adaptation is to identify core functions (purposes) and forms (activities) of EBIs. Core functions should not be adapted as they are what account for the efficacy of EBIs. Despite their importance, core functions are rarely identified by EBI developers; methods for identifying them post hoc are lacking. We present a case study of theory-based methods for identifying core functions and forms post hoc. We developed these methods as the first step in a larger effort to adapt an existing EBI to improve the timeliness of referrals to hospice to a new patient population and care setting. Our methods were rooted in the Planned Adaptation Model (PAM). Through our case study, we developed six steps for identifying core functions and forms, as well as accompanying tools and methods. Our case study further operationalized PAM in several ways. Where PAM offered guiding tenets for identifying core functions and forms (review existing EBI materials, conduct primary data collection, and identify the theory of change), we produced specific tools (interview guides and codebooks) and methods (sampling approaches and analytic methods). Our case study extended PAM with the addition of two steps in the process of identifying core functions and forms: (a) identifying the usual care pathway, including barriers to the outcome of interest encountered in usual care, and (b) mapping EBI core functions onto an extant theory. Identifying core functions and forms is a critical first step in the adaptation process to ensure adaptations do not inadvertently compromise the efficacy or effectiveness of the EBI by compromising core functions. Our case study presents step-by-step methods that could be used by researchers or practitioners to identify core functions and forms post hoc.
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.
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
Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2410010304 · Cited by 3,053 · see citing works
Hayes, S. C. (2004) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80013-3 · Cited by 2,493 · see citing works
Core Implementation Components
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/1049731509335549 · Cited by 1,103 · see citing works
Issues in Disseminating and Replicating Effective Prevention Programs
Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1023/b:prev.0000013981.28071.52 · Cited by 794 · see citing works
Effectiveness, Transportability, and Dissemination of Interventions: What Matters When?
Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1190 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
Toward a Theory of Motivated Information Management
Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2004) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00310.x · Cited by 683 · see citing works
Laubmeier, K. K., Zakowski, S. G., & Bair, J. P. (2004) · International Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm1101_6 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Miller, C. J., Wiltsey‐Stirman, S., & Baumann, A. A. (2020) · Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcop.22279 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kirk, M. A., Haines, E. R., Rokoske, F. S., Powell, B. J., Weinberger, M., Hanson, L. C., & Birken, S. A.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- RTI International (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kirk, M Alexis
- Venue
- Translational Behavioral Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-12-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-33
- ISSN
- 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
- 1869-6716
- PMC
- PMC7877297
- OpenAlex
- W2992590060
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 9.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- RTI International
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- National Institutes of Health (KL2TR001109, K01MH113806, L30MH108060, R25MH080916, R01MH106510, UL1TR001111, P30AI050410)
- 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
- evidence-based interventions, intervention adaptation, core functions, theory of change, hospice referral, barriers to care, intervention fidelity
- MeSH terms
- Health Services, Humans, Evidence-Based Medicine
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