Developing Theory to Guide Building Practitioners’ Capacity to Implement Evidence-Based Interventions
Open accessAbstract
Public health and other community-based practitioners have access to a growing number of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), and yet EBIs continue to be underused. One reason for this underuse is that practitioners often lack the capacity (knowledge, skills, and motivation) to select, adapt, and implement EBIs. Training, technical assistance, and other capacity-building strategies can be effective at increasing EBI adoption and implementation. However, little is known about how to design capacity-building strategies or tailor them to differences in capacity required across varying EBIs and practice contexts. To address this need, we conducted a scoping study of frameworks and theories detailing variations in EBIs or practice contexts and how to tailor capacity-building to address those variations. Using an iterative process, we consolidated constructs and propositions across 24 frameworks and developed a beginning theory to describe salient variations in EBIs (complexity and uncertainty) and practice contexts (decision-making structure, general capacity to innovate, resource and values fit with EBI, and unity vs. polarization of stakeholder support). The theory also includes propositions for tailoring capacity-building strategies to address salient variations. To have wide-reaching and lasting impact, the dissemination of EBIs needs to be coupled with strategies that build practitioners’ capacity to adopt and implement a variety of EBIs across diverse practice contexts.
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?
Distinctions between strategies used to support implementation and strategies used to integrate screening EBIs into practice are important when selecting and reporting strategies because the evidence base and underlying theory differ for these two types.
“We contend that these distinctions are important when selecting and reporting strategies for use in research and practice because the evidence base and, to a large extent, the underlying theory, differ for strategies used to support implementation (e.g., [6, 7]) as compared to strategies used to integrate screening EBIs into practice (e.g., [8, 9]).”
From Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice (2017) · cites this paper as [7]
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 46 · Cited by 90
- Authors
- Leeman, J., Calancie, L., Kegler, M. C., Escoffery, C. T., Herrmann, A. K., Thatcher, E., Hartman, M. A., & Fernandez, M. E.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Emory University (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
- University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, TX, USA
- Corresponding author
- Leeman, Jennifer
- ORCID
- Venue
- Health Education & Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07-10
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-69
- ISSN
- 1090-1981 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6127
- PMC
- PMC5330318
- OpenAlex
- W1944547964
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.eur.nl
- Locations
- Health Education & Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001111, UL1TR002489, R25CA57712)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U48DP001949, U48DP0010909, U48DP001934)
- National Cancer Institute (U48DP001934, R25‐CA57712, R25CA057712, R01CA163526, U48DP001949, U48DP0010909)
- National Institute of Nursing Research (T32NR007091)
- National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (U48DP001949, U48DP001934)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- evidence-based interventions, capacity building, public health workforce, technical assistance, training, implementation theory, intervention complexity, uncertainty, decision-making structures, stakeholder support
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Motivation, Public Health, Evidence-Based Practice, Capacity Building
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