This publication was published more than 5 years ago. The state of knowledge may have changed.

Process models to support implementation in municipality settings

Reading time approx. 3 minutes Published: Publication type:

SBU Enquiry Service

Consists of structured literature searches to highlight studies that can address questions received by the SBU Enquiry Service from Swedish healthcare or social service providers. We assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews and when needed also quality and transferability of results in health economic studies. Relevant references are compiled by an SBU staff member, in consultation with an external expert when needed.

Contact SBU
Published:

Introduction

New knowledge as well as organisational readiness to change are required to successfully implement new methods. One way to support implementation, from identification of needs to routine use of a new method, is to use a so-called process model as a support for the organisation. Process models are manualised and provide a detailed guidance throughout the process. Often, the models include support by internal or external change agents.

The evidence base for process models to support implementation is however unclear.

Question

Are there any process model that have evidence for a sustainable effect to support implementation of new methods in municipality settings?

Identified literature

  1. Glisson C, Dukes D, Green P. The effects of the ARC organizational intervention on caseworker turnover, climate, and culture in children's service systems. Child Abuse Negl 2006;30:855-80; discussion 849-54.
  2. Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Dukes D, Atkinson S, Williams NJ. Randomized trial of the Availability, Responsiveness, and Continuity (ARC) organizational intervention with community-based mental health programs and clinicians serving youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2012;51:780-7.
  3. Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Williams NJ. Randomized trial of the Availability, Responsiveness and Continuity (ARC) organizational intervention for improving youth outcomes in community mental health programs. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2013;52:493-500.
  4. Glisson C, Schoenwald SK, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Dukes D, Armstrong KS, et al. Randomized trial of MST and ARC in a two-level evidence-based treatment implementation strategy. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010;78:537-50.
  5. Glisson C, Williams NJ, Hemmelgarn A, Proctor E, Green P. Aligning organizational priorities with ARC to improve youth mental health service outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol 2016;84:713-25.
  6. Glisson C, Williams NJ, Hemmelgarn A, Proctor E, Green P. Increasing clinicians' EBT exploration and preparation behavior in youth mental health services by changing organizational culture with ARC. Behav Res Ther 2016;76:40-6.
  7. Brown CH, Chamberlain P, Saldana L, Padgett C, Wang W, Cruden G. Evaluation of two implementation strategies in 51 child county public service systems in two states: results of a cluster randomized head-to-head implementation trial. Implement Sci 2014;9:134.
  8. Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®. Implementation Science 2016;11:1-16.
  9. Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Malone PS, Slaughter ME. A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Getting To Outcomes' Impact on Sexual Health Outcomes in Community-Based Settings. Prevention Science 2018;19:437-448.
  10. Chinman M, Ebener P, Burkhart Q, Osilla K, Imm P, Paddock S, et al. Evaluating the Impact of Getting to Outcomes-Underage Drinking on Prevention Capacity and Alcohol Merchant Attitudes and Selling Behaviors. Prevention Science 2014;15:485-496.
  11. Chinman M, Hunter SB, Ebener P, Paddock SM, Stillman L, Imm P, et al. The Getting To Outcomes Demonstration and Evaluation: An Illustration of the Prevention Support System. American Journal of Community Psychology 2008;41:206-224.
  12. Chinman M, McCarthy S, Hannah G, Byrne TH, Smelson DA. Using Getting To Outcomes to facilitate the use of an evidence-based practice in VA homeless programs: a cluster-randomized trial of an implementation support strategy. Implementation Science 2017;12:1-12.
  13. Chinman M, Tremain B, Imm P, Wandersman A. Strengthening Prevention Performance Using Technology: A Formative Evaluation of Interactive Getting To Outcomes®. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 2009;79:469-481.
  14. Acosta J, Chinman M, Ebener P, Malone PS, Paddock S, Phillips A, et al. An intervention to improve program implementation: findings from a two-year cluster randomized trial of Assets-Getting To Outcomes. Implementation Science 2013;8:1-16.
  15. Nadeem E, Weiss D, Olin SS, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Using a Theory-Guided Learning Collaborative Model to Improve Implementation of EBPs in a State Children's Mental Health System: A Pilot Study. Adm Policy Ment Health 2016;43:978-990.
Page published
To top