Cited by 121Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

A model for rigorously applying the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework in the design and measurement of a large scale collaborative multi-site study

Open access
Becan, Jennifer E., Bartkowski, John P., Knight, Danica K., Wiley, Tisha R. A., DiClemente, Ralph, Ducharme, Lori, Welsh, Wayne N., Bowser, Diana +8 more·2018·Health & Justice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the means by which a United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded cooperative, Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS), utilized an established implementation science framework in conducting a multi-site, multi-research center implementation intervention initiative. The initiative aimed to bolster the ability of juvenile justice agencies to address unmet client needs related to substance use while enhancing inter-organizational relationships between juvenile justice and local behavioral health partners. METHODS: The EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) framework was selected and utilized as the guiding model from inception through project completion; including the mapping of implementation strategies to EPIS stages, articulation of research questions, and selection, content, and timing of measurement protocols. Among other key developments, the project led to a reconceptualization of its governing implementation science framework into cyclical form as the EPIS Wheel. The EPIS Wheel is more consistent with rapid-cycle testing principles and permits researchers to track both progressive and recursive movement through EPIS. Moreover, because this randomized controlled trial was predicated on a bundled strategy method, JJ-TRIALS was designed to rigorously test progress through the EPIS stages as promoted by facilitation of data-driven decision making principles. The project extended EPIS by (1) elucidating the role and nature of recursive activity in promoting change (yielding the circular EPIS Wheel), (2) by expanding the applicability of the EPIS framework beyond a single evidence-based practice (EBP) to address varying process improvement efforts (representing varying EBPs), and (3) by disentangling outcome measures of progression through EPIS stages from the a priori established study timeline. DISCUSSION: The utilization of EPIS in JJ-TRIALS provides a model for practical and applied use of implementation frameworks in real-world settings that span outer service system and inner organizational contexts in improving care for vulnerable populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02672150 . Retrospectively registered on 22 January 2016.

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/s40352-018-0068-3

Cites

45 of 45 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?

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 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Becan, J. E., Bartkowski, J. P., Knight, D. K., Wiley, T. R. A., DiClemente, R., Ducharme, L., Welsh, W. N., Bowser, D., McCollister, K., Hiller, M., Spaulding, A. C., Flynn, P. M., Swartzendruber, A., Dickson, M. F., Fisher, J. H., & Aarons, G. A.
Affiliations
  • Texas Christian University (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (US)
  • Temple University (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Becan, Jennifer E.
Venue
Health & Justice
Published
2018-04-13
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
9-9
ISSN
2194-7899 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2799439473
Cited by
119
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
16.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health & Justice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • TUScholarShare (Temple University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (U01DA036221, U01DA036226, U01DA036233, U01DA036176, U01DA036225, U01DA036224, U01DA036158, R21DA044378)
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
EPIS framework, implementation science, juvenile justice, substance use, implementation strategies, outcome measurement, interorganizational relationships, data-driven decision making, vulnerable populations

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