Implementation quality of a family‐focused preventive intervention in a community‐based dissemination
Open accessAbstract
The aims of this study were to determine (1) the degree to which an evidence-based intervention (EBI) delivered outside the context of a research trial remained faithful to the content and design of the programme as intended and as reported in experimental trials of the same programme, and (2) whether implementation quality affected programme outcomes. We report results of an observational study of 11 sites involved in the statewide dissemination of a popular family-focused prevention programme, the Strengthening Families Programme for Parents and Youth 10-14. We found numerous differences between the community-based implementations we observed and researcher-driven implementations of the same programme, but variability in programme delivery and adherence to content were unrelated to programme outcomes. We conclude that short-term outcomes of well-designed EBIs delivered by well-trained facilitators may be robust to minor changes in delivery and content. However, the effects of implementation quality on longer-term outcomes are unknown.
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?
The characteristics of this study sample closely resemble other SFP 10-14 facilitator samples.
“The characteristics of this study sample closely resemble other SFP 10-14 facilitator samples [34, 35].”
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 26 · Cited by 18
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Backer TE 2000 The failure of success: challenges of disseminating effective substance abuse prevention programmes Journal of Community Psychology. Special Issue: Bridging the gap between research and practice in community-based substance abuse prevention 28 363 373
- Mincemoyer C 2002 4-H School Enrichment: a school and community partnership The School Community Journal 12 107 116
- Authors
- Cantu, A., Hill, L., & Becker, L.
- Affiliations
- Thrive (US)
- Washington State University (US)
- State of Washington (US)
- ORCID
- Hill, Laura
- Venue
- Journal of Children's Services
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-12-02
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 18-30
- ISSN
- 1746-6660 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4203412
- OpenAlex
- W2170802344
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Children s Services (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
- Department of Social Services, Australian Government
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA025139, R21DA019758)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
- Keywords
- implementation fidelity, evidence-based interventions, family-focused prevention, program delivery, adolescent parenting, parent training
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
