Trajectory of external implementation support activities across two states in the United States: A descriptive study.

Background: Reporting on strategies to advance implementation outcomes is imperative. The current study reports descriptive information about external implementation support (EIS) provided over 5 years to 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family supports. Regional support teams operating through the Implementation Capacity for Triple P (ICTP) projects employed core practice components (CPCs) for EIS as proposed by Aldridge et al. and further operationalized by members of The Impact Center at FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill. Method: Practice activities associated with CPCs were developed and iteratively refined across the study period. ICTP regional support teams systematically tracked their use of CPCs and related activities following each substantive support interaction. Tracking included the duration of time a CPC was employed and the use of specific practice activities associated with that CPC. Data were aggregated by month of the relationship to account for differential start dates across regions. Results: From November 2016 through December 2021, ICTP support teams tracked 749 support interactions with Triple P regions in North Carolina and South Carolina. Monthly support decreased year over year, though dose varied considerably. Patterns of CPC use indicated a high dose of "foundational" and "co-design" CPCs early, followed by a blended and more diverse use thereafter, with some notable trends. Practice activities considered essential to influencing intended practice outcomes were characterized by higher rates of use. Like CPCs, practice activities were used dynamically across the study period. Conclusions: This descriptive study offers a case study for how EIS might be operationalized, tracked, and employed. Findings suggest several interpretations that might refine our understanding and use of EIS. Although the nature of this practical report precludes generalizability of findings, directions for future research and practice are discussed.

More needs to be known about how external support providers work with organizational, system, and community partners to improve their efforts to implement innovative programs and practices. Although a handful of models of external support have emerged in the literature, support strategies or activities are not often tracked systematically or prospectively. In the current study, we report on the adoption, operationalization, and use of a recently proposed model of external support across 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family interventions. Teams of external support providers tracked their activities using the model across more than 5 years. Results provide a description of what external support might look like across long-term support engagements, noting key patterns about dose of support and use of activities that might be responsible for influencing intended support outcomes. The study offers several findings that might refine our understanding and use of external support strategies. In addition, the study lays groundwork for examining additional research questions, such as the feasibility of support processes and whether and how support activities influence support outcomes.

Mechanisms of change in external implementation support: A conceptual model and case examples to guide research and practice.

Background: External implementation support (EIS) is a well-recognized feature of implementation science and practice, often under related terms such as technical assistance and implementation facilitation. Existing models of EIS have gaps related to addressing practice outcomes at both individual and organizational levels, connecting practice activities to intended outcomes, or grounding in well-established theories of behavior and organization change. Moreover, there have been calls to clarify the mechanisms of change through which EIS influences related outcomes. Method: In this article, we theorize about mechanisms of change within EIS. Our theorizing process aligns with the approach advocated by Kislov et al. We aim to consolidate prior EIS literature, combining related constructs from previous empirical and conceptual work while drawing on our extensive EIS experience to develop a higher-order, midrange theory of change. Results: Our theory of change is empirically and practically informed, conceptually situated within an established grand theory of change, and guided by eight practice principles and social cognitive theory. The theory of change proposes 10 core practice components as mechanisms of change within EIS. When used according to underlying theory and principles, they are believed to contribute to favorable practice outcomes at individual, team, organizational, and system levels. The model offers flexibility by recognizing the need for sequential support processes and the demand to practice in dynamic and responsive ways. Case examples are presented to illustrate major themes and patterns of the model in action. Conclusions: The proposed model is intended to support prospective EIS studies by conceptualizing discernable practice components with hypothesized relationships to proximal and distal practice outcomes. The model can be behaviorally operationalized to compliment and extend competency-based approaches to implementation support practitioner (ISP) training and coaching. Over time, the model should be refined based on new empirical findings and contributions from ISPs across the field.

There are few models that help us understand how external support providers work with organizational, system, and community partners to improve their efforts to implement innovative programs and practices. Existing models typically describe characteristics and features of the process but lack grounding in well-established theories of behavior and organizational change. In this paper, we theorize about mechanisms of change within the support process, which we label core practice components, and explain how their use might improve implementation efforts through shorter- and longer-term practice outcomes. We believe that our model holds promise for informing future advancements in both research and practice. Foremost, the core practice components lend themselves to behavioral definitions and thus being observed and reported in action. In research, this will allow the relationships we propose in our model to be tested and refined over time, resulting in an incremental accumulation of knowledge. In practice, a greater understanding of core practice components and their relationships to key practice outcomes offers ways to enhance training and coaching activities for external support providers. The model may also aid support providers to more effectively navigate the support process and plan more timely and effective support strategies.

Is the Concept of Self-Regulation Useful for Supporting Effective Implementation in Community Settings?

The literature and utility of self-regulation extends beyond individuals; a critical factor for successful and sustainable implementation of evidence-based programs in a community setting may be the capacity of teams to self-regulate implementation processes. The conceptual foundation of this proposal is explored and definitions of the five dimensions of self-regulation for implementation processes are provided. Practice examples illustrate how the provision of external implementation support to build self-regulatory capacity among implementation teams adopting and scaling-up EBPs in the local community setting has shaped and refined the proposed definitions to better reflect the work on-the-ground. The role of external implementation support providers in developing implementation team self-regulation is explored and practice strategies to promote self-regulation are provided. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Peer support of complex health behaviors in prevention and disease management with special reference to diabetes: systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Examine Peer Support (PS) for complex, sustained health behaviors in prevention or disease management with emphasis on diabetes prevention and management. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: PS was defined as emotional, motivational and practical assistance provided by nonprofessionals for complex health behaviors. Initial review examined 65 studies drawn from 1442 abstracts identified through PubMed, published 1/1/2000-7/15/2011. From this search, 24 reviews were also identified. Extension of the search in diabetes identified 30 studies published 1/1/2000-12/31/2015. RESULTS: In initial review, 54 of all 65 studies (83.1%) reported significant impacts of PS, 40 (61.5%) reporting between-group differences and another 14 (21.5%) reporting significant within-group changes. Across 19 of 24 reviews providing quantifiable findings, a median of 64.5% of studies reviewed reported significant effects of PS. In extended review of diabetes, 26 of all 30 studies (86.7%) reported significant impacts of PS, 17 (56.7%) reporting between-group differences and another nine (30.0%) reporting significant within-group changes. Among 19 of these 30 reporting HbA1c data, average reduction was 0.76 points. Studies that did not find effects of PS included other sources of support, implementation or methodological problems, lack of acceptance of interventions, poor fit to recipient needs, and possible harm of unmoderated PS. CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse settings, including under-resourced countries and health care systems, PS is effective in improving complex health behaviors in disease prevention and management including in diabetes.

Active involved community partnerships: co-creating implementation infrastructure for getting to and sustaining social impact.

Active involved community partnerships (AICPs) are essential to co-create implementation infrastructure and translate evidence into real-world practice. Across varied forms, AICPs cultivate community and tribal members as agents of change, blending research and organizational knowledge with relationships, context, culture, and local wisdom. Unlike selective engagement, AICPs enable active involvement of partners in the ongoing process of implementation and sustainability. This includes defining the problem, developing solutions, detecting practice changes, aligning organizational supports, and nurturing shared responsibility, accountability, and ownership for implementation. This paper builds on previously established active implementation and scaling functions by outlining key AICP functions to close the research-practice gap. Part of a federal initiative, California Partners for Permanency (CAPP) integrated AICP functions for implementation and system change to reduce disproportionality and disparities in long-term foster care. This paper outlines their experience defining and embedding five AICP functions: (1) relationship-building; (2) addressing system barriers; (3) establishing culturally relevant supports and services; (4) meaningful involvement in implementation; and (5) ongoing communication and feedback for continuous improvement. Planning for social impact requires the integration of AICP with other active implementation and scaling functions. Through concrete examples, authors bring multilevel AICP roles to life and discuss implications for implementation research and practice.

Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: embedding active implementation and scaling functions.

Traditional efforts to translate evidence-based prevention strategies to communities, at scale, have not often produced socially significant outcomes or the local capacity needed to sustain them. A key gap in many efforts is the transformation of community prevention systems to support and sustain local infrastructure for the active implementation, scaling, and continuous improvement of effective prevention strategies. In this paper, we discuss (1) the emergence of applied implementation science as an important type 3-5 translational extension of traditional type 2 translational prevention science, (2) active implementation and scaling functions to support the full and effective use of evidence-based prevention strategies in practice, (3) the organization and alignment of local infrastructure to embed active implementation and scaling functions within community prevention systems, and (4) policy and practice implications for greater social impact and sustainable use of effective prevention strategies.

Peer support for self-management of diabetes improved outcomes in international settings.

Self-management of diabetes is essential to reducing the risks of associated disabilities. But effective self-management is often short-lived. Peers can provide the kind of ongoing support that is needed for sustained self-management of diabetes. In this context, peers are nonprofessionals who have diabetes or close familiarity with its management. Key functions of effective peer support include assistance in daily management, social and emotional support, linkage to clinical care, and ongoing availability of support. Using these four functions as a template of peer support, project teams in Cameroon, South Africa, Thailand, and Uganda developed and then evaluated peer support interventions for adults with diabetes. Our initial assessment found improvements in symptom management, diet, blood pressure, body mass index, and blood sugar levels for many of those taking part in the programs. For policy makers, the broader message is that by emphasizing the four key peer support functions, diabetes management programs can be successfully introduced across varied cultural settings and within diverse health systems.

Peers for progress: promoting peer support for health around the world.

INTRODUCTION: Peers for Progress, a global initiative of the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, developed out of the World Health Organization (WHO) Consultation on Peer Support Programmes in Diabetes as a strategic approach to promote best practices in peer support for health around the world. Why peer support. People often find themselves on their own to manage complex factors for behaviour change. Peer support can link people sharing experiences to provide the practical, emotional, and ongoing support that is critical to sustained behaviour change. The need. Diabetes is a global epidemic that affects all aspects of people's lives for the rest of their lives. The complexity of self-management requires ongoing support for effective and sustained management. Key principles, strategies, activities. Peers for Progress aims to strengthen evidence of the value of peer support through evaluation grants, encourage recognition of a state-of-the-art in peer support through defining key functions of support that can be tailored and applied globally, and promote peer support through networking with programmes and leaders around the world. CONCLUSIONS: People seeking to prevent or manage health conditions can be a powerful source of support to each other to manage complex behaviors. Peers for Progress has a defined functional framework for peer support's core functions, and is evaluating the scope and impact of peer support interventions based on this framework and a set of consensus evaluation measures. Peers for Progress looks to raise the visibility and applicability of peer support as good health care for all people.