CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 117 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mixed-method study of a conceptual model of evidence-based intervention sustainment across multiple public-sector service settings

Open access
Aarons, Gregory A, Green, Amy E, Willging, Cathleen E, Ehrhart, Mark G, Roesch, Scott C, Hecht, Debra B, Chaffin, Mark J·2014·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0183-zPMC PMC4272775
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study examines sustainment of an EBI implemented in 11 United States service systems across two states, and delivered in 87 counties. The aims are to 1) determine the impact of state and county policies and contracting on EBI provision and sustainment; 2) investigate the role of public, private, and academic relationships and collaboration in long-term EBI sustainment; 3) assess organizational and provider factors that affect EBI reach/penetration, fidelity, and organizational sustainment climate; and 4) integrate findings through a collaborative process involving the investigative team, consultants, and system and community-based organization (CBO) stakeholders in order to further develop and refine a conceptual model of sustainment to guide future research and provide a resource for service systems to prepare for sustainment as the ultimate goal of the implementation process. METHODS: A mixed-method prospective and retrospective design will be used. Semi-structured individual and group interviews will be used to collect information regarding influences on EBI sustainment including policies, attitudes, and practices; organizational factors and external policies affecting model implementation; involvement of or collaboration with other stakeholders; and outer- and inner-contextual supports that facilitate ongoing EBI sustainment. Document review (e.g., legislation, executive orders, regulations, monitoring data, annual reports, agendas and meeting minutes) will be used to examine the roles of state, county, and local policies in EBI sustainment. Quantitative measures will be collected via administrative data and web surveys to assess EBI reach/penetration, staff turnover, EBI model fidelity, organizational culture and climate, work attitudes, implementation leadership, sustainment climate, attitudes toward EBIs, program sustainment, and level of institutionalization. Hierarchical linear modeling will be used for quantitative analyses. Qualitative analyses will be tailored to each of the qualitative methods (e.g., document review, interviews). Qualitative and quantitative approaches will be integrated through an inclusive process that values stakeholder perspectives. DISCUSSION: The study of sustainment is critical to capitalizing on and benefiting from the time and fiscal investments in EBI implementation. Sustainment is also critical to realizing broad public health impact of EBI implementation. The present study takes a comprehensive mixed-method approach to understanding sustainment and refining a conceptual model of sustainment.

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/s13012-014-0183-z

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Sustainment conceptual model based on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) multilevel conceptual framework (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, [[11]]). Note: some constructs may be considered predictors or outcomes dependent on particular hypotheses or research questions.
Figure 1 Sustainment conceptual model based on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) multilevel conceptual framework (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, [[11]]). Note: some constructs may be considered predictors or outcomes dependent on particular hypotheses or research questions.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: 3

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families: Child Maltreatment. 2010, Children’s Bureau, Washington, DC
  2. Whitaker DJ, Lutzker JR, Self-Brown S, Edwards AE: Implementing an evidence-based program for the prevention of child maltreatment: the SafeCare® program. Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth. 2008, 8: 55-62.
  3. Fraser D: QSR NVivo Reference Guide. 2000, QSR International, Melbourne

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 107

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Aarons, G. A., Green, A. E., Willging, C. E., Ehrhart, M. G., Roesch, S. C., Hecht, D. B., & Chaffin, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Pacific Institute For Research and Evaluation (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Aarons, Gregory A
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
183-183
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13012-014-0183-z
PMC
PMC4272775
OpenAlex
W2115239664
Cited by
107
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
10.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
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
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH072961)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
implementation sustainability, contracting, stakeholder collaboration, organizational climate, fidelity, employee turnover, implementation leadership, community organizations, institutionalization
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Behavior Therapy, Child, Child Abuse, Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, Health Policy, Home Care Services, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Leadership, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, United States, Organizational Culture, Program Evaluation, Organizational Policy, Private Sector, Public Sector, 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