Cited by 113Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social networks and implementation of evidence-based practices in public youth-serving systems: a mixed-methods study

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The present study examines the structure and operation of social networks of information and advice and their role in making decisions as to whether to adopt new evidence-based practices (EBPs) among agency directors and other program professionals in 12 California counties participating in a large randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 38 directors, assistant directors, and program managers of county probation, mental health, and child welfare departments. Grounded-theory analytic methods were used to identify themes related to EBP adoption and network influences. A web-based survey collected additional quantitative information on members of information and advice networks of study participants. A mixed-methods approach to data analysis was used to create a sociometric data set (n = 176) for examination of associations between advice seeking and network structure. RESULTS: Systems leaders develop and maintain networks of information and advice based on roles, responsibility, geography, and friendship ties. Networks expose leaders to information about EBPs and opportunities to adopt EBPs; they also influence decisions to adopt EBPs. Individuals in counties at the same stage of implementation accounted for 83% of all network ties. Networks in counties that decided not to implement a specific EBP had no extra-county ties. Implementation of EBPs at the two-year follow-up was associated with the size of county, urban versus rural counties, and in-degree centrality. Collaboration was viewed as critical to implementing EBPs, especially in small, rural counties where agencies have limited resources on their own. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of EBPs requires consideration and utilization of existing social networks of high-status systems leaders that often cut across service organizations and their geographic jurisdictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00880126.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-6-113

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Evidence-based practice advice networks by implementation stage. Advice Network Properties. Grey nodes represent individuals who reported on the stage-of-implementation checklist as being in stages 0-1, blue-green nodes represent those in stages 2-6, and bright green nodes those in stages 7-8. White nodes depict individuals about whom insufficient information was obtained to ascertain implementation stage or about whom implementation stage is not relevant, such as individuals who work for the California Institute of Mental Health.
Figure 1 Evidence-based practice advice networks by implementation stage. Advice Network Properties. Grey nodes represent individuals who reported on the stage-of-implementation checklist as being in stages 0-1, blue-green nodes represent those in stages 2-6, and bright green nodes those in stages 7-8. White nodes depict individuals about whom insufficient information was obtained to ascertain implementation stage or about whom implementation stage is not relevant, such as individuals who work for the California Institute of Mental Health.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bandura A: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. 1986, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  2. Sosna T, Marsenich L: Community Development Team Model: Supporting the Model Adherent Implementation of Programs and Practices. 2006, Sacramento: California Institute of Mental Health, [ http://www.cimh.org/downloads/CDT_report.pdf ]
  3. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A: Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Handbook of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. 2003, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3-50.
  4. Fraser D: QSR NVivo NUD*IST Vivo Reference Guide. 2000, Melbourne: QSR International
  5. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC: Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. 2002, Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 113

Metadata

Authors
Palinkas, L. A., Holloway, I. W., Rice, E., Fuentes, D., Wu, Q., & Chamberlain, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Palinkas, Lawrence A
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2011-09-29
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
113-113
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107778773
Cited by
113
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
13.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • William T. Grant Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh007658-23)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH07658)
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 › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
social networks, evidence-based practice adoption, probation, child welfare, mental health services, in-degree centrality, collaboration, rural counties, implementation decision-making
MeSH terms
Adolescent, California, Child, Child Welfare, Community Health Services, Cooperative Behavior, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Social Support, Multivariate Analysis, Program Development, Public Sector, Substance-Related Disorders, Internet, 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