Cited by 20Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

Influence network linkages across implementation strategy conditions in a randomized controlled trial of two strategies for scaling up evidence-based practices in public youth-serving systems

Open access
Palinkas, Lawrence A., Holloway, Ian W., Rice, Eric, Brown, C. Hendricks, Valente, Thomas W., Chamberlain, Patricia·2013·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Given the importance of influence networks in the implementation of evidence-based practices and interventions, it is unclear whether such networks continue to operate as sources of information and advice when they are segmented and disrupted by randomization to different implementation strategy conditions. The present study examines the linkages across implementation strategy conditions of social influence networks of leaders of youth-serving systems in 12 California counties participating in a randomized controlled trial of community development teams (CDTs) to scale up use of an evidence-based practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 directors, assistant directors, and program managers of county probation, mental health, and child welfare departments. A web-based survey collected additional quantitative data on information and advice networks of study participants. A mixed-methods approach to data analysis was used to create a sociometric data set (n = 176) to examine linkages between treatment and standard conditions. RESULTS: Of those network members who were affiliated with a county (n = 137), only 6 (4.4%) were directly connected to a member of the opposite implementation strategy condition; 19 (13.9%) were connected by two steps or fewer to a member of the opposite implementation strategy condition; 64 (46.7%) were connected by three or fewer steps to a member of the opposite implementation strategy condition. Most of the indirect steps between individuals who were in different implementation strategy conditions were connections involving a third non-county organizational entity that had an important role in the trial in keeping the implementation strategy conditions separate. When these entities were excluded, the CDT network exhibited fewer components and significantly higher betweenness centralization than did the standard condition network. CONCLUSION: Although the integrity of the RCT in this instance was not compromised by study participant influence networks, RCT designs should consider how influence networks may extend beyond boundaries established by the randomization process in implementation studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00880126.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-8-133

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Community Development Teams strengthened the network between counties.

    “This project also showed that a type of learning collaborative, Community Development Teams, designed to strengthen the network between counties as a way of resolving implementation challenges, (1) strengthened the network [27]”

    From Social Network Analysis for Program Implementation (2015) · cites this paper as [27]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Borgotti SP NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software 2002 Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies
  2. Borgatti SP Everett MG Freeman LC Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis 2002 Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies
  3. Rogers EM Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed) 2003 New York: Free Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Palinkas, L. A., Holloway, I. W., Rice, E., Brown, C. H., Valente, T. W., & Chamberlain, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Oregon Social Learning Center (US)
Corresponding author
Palinkas, Lawrence A.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2013-11-14
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
133-133
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126521951
Cited by
20
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
6.61
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)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • William T. Grant Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh007658-23)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH07658, P30MH074678)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30-DA027828-01-A1, P30DA027828, P30DA023920)
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
influence networks, social networks, child welfare, mental health services, network partitioning
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, California, Child, Child Welfare, Female, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, 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