Improvements in Capacity Among Community Coalitions Receiving Technical Assistance Through the Coalition Check-Up.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Prevention Science Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-24 DOI:10.1007/s11121-026-01941-z
Yvonne Gaddy, Sarah M Chilenski, Rebecca Wells, Louis D Brown
{"title":"Improvements in Capacity Among Community Coalitions Receiving Technical Assistance Through the Coalition Check-Up.","authors":"Yvonne Gaddy, Sarah M Chilenski, Rebecca Wells, Louis D Brown","doi":"10.1007/s11121-026-01941-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Community coalitions are central to the prevention delivery system, yet their ability to implement and sustain effective strategies often depends on technical assistance (TA). TA typically strengthens coalition capacity, but many coalitions lack connection to TA, and it is costly to sustain. Low intensity TA models that support coalition capacity exist but have not been rigorously evaluated. This study examines the Coalition Check-Up (CoCU) as a low intensity TA model to strengthen coalition capacity. Using up to 3 years of data, we tested whether capacities selected by coalitions during each CoCU implementation year improved over time. Thirty-two coalitions in Pennsylvania and Missouri received TA to review their summary report on data collected yearly over 3 years and a follow-up after year 3. Each year, coalitions used their report to prioritize a capacity for action planning following the CoCU TA model. Analyses examined data from multiple baselines (i.e., before action planning at year 1, year 2, and year 3) and subsequent data collection timepoints to test for longitudinal change on prioritized capacities. Coalitions receiving TA through the CoCU model demonstrated measurable improvements over time. Capacities prioritized in year 1 significantly improved across the following years measured (β = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.004, 0.26]; p = .04), as did capacities selected in the second year (β = 0.20, CI [0.02, 0.37]; p = .03) and the third year (β = 0.61, CI [0.16, 1.07]; p = .01). Findings suggest that a low intensity TA model like CoCU has the potential to guide coalitions toward strategic capacity development, ultimately enhancing their ability to deliver impactful prevention initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48268,"journal":{"name":"Prevention Science","volume":" ","pages":"958-970"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13433725/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prevention Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-026-01941-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Community coalitions are central to the prevention delivery system, yet their ability to implement and sustain effective strategies often depends on technical assistance (TA). TA typically strengthens coalition capacity, but many coalitions lack connection to TA, and it is costly to sustain. Low intensity TA models that support coalition capacity exist but have not been rigorously evaluated. This study examines the Coalition Check-Up (CoCU) as a low intensity TA model to strengthen coalition capacity. Using up to 3 years of data, we tested whether capacities selected by coalitions during each CoCU implementation year improved over time. Thirty-two coalitions in Pennsylvania and Missouri received TA to review their summary report on data collected yearly over 3 years and a follow-up after year 3. Each year, coalitions used their report to prioritize a capacity for action planning following the CoCU TA model. Analyses examined data from multiple baselines (i.e., before action planning at year 1, year 2, and year 3) and subsequent data collection timepoints to test for longitudinal change on prioritized capacities. Coalitions receiving TA through the CoCU model demonstrated measurable improvements over time. Capacities prioritized in year 1 significantly improved across the following years measured (β = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.004, 0.26]; p = .04), as did capacities selected in the second year (β = 0.20, CI [0.02, 0.37]; p = .03) and the third year (β = 0.61, CI [0.16, 1.07]; p = .01). Findings suggest that a low intensity TA model like CoCU has the potential to guide coalitions toward strategic capacity development, ultimately enhancing their ability to deliver impactful prevention initiatives.

通过联盟检查提高接受技术援助的社区联盟的能力。
社区联盟是预防提供系统的核心,但其实施和维持有效战略的能力往往取决于技术援助。技术援助通常会加强联盟能力,但许多联盟缺乏与技术援助的联系,而且维持成本高昂。支持联盟能力的低强度技术评估模型已经存在,但尚未得到严格评估。本研究将联盟检查(CoCU)作为一种低强度的TA模型来检验联盟能力。利用长达3年的数据,我们测试了各联盟在每个cou实施年度所选择的能力是否随着时间的推移而有所改善。宾夕法尼亚州和密苏里州的32个联盟接受了评估,以审查他们3年来每年收集的数据总结报告,并在第3年后进行后续调查。每年,各联盟都利用其报告,按照CoCU技术援助模式确定行动规划能力的优先次序。分析检查了来自多个基线(即,在第1年、第2年和第3年的行动计划之前)和随后的数据收集时间点的数据,以测试优先能力的纵向变化。通过CoCU模型接受TA的联盟随着时间的推移显示出可衡量的改进。第一年优先考虑的能力在随后几年的测量中显著提高(β = 0.13, 95%置信区间(CI) [0.004, 0.26];p =。04),第二年选择的能力也是如此(β = 0.20, CI [0.02, 0.37];03)和第三年(β= 0.61,CI [0.16, 1.07]; p = . 01)。研究结果表明,像CoCU这样的低强度TA模型有可能指导联盟进行战略能力发展,最终增强其提供有影响力的预防举措的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prevention Science
Prevention Science PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.40%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: Prevention Science is the official publication of the Society for Prevention Research. The Journal serves as an interdisciplinary forum designed to disseminate new developments in the theory, research and practice of prevention. Prevention sciences encompassing etiology, epidemiology and intervention are represented through peer-reviewed original research articles on a variety of health and social problems, including but not limited to substance abuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS, violence, accidents, teenage pregnancy, suicide, delinquency, STD''s, obesity, diet/nutrition, exercise, and chronic illness. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, brief reports, replication studies, and papers concerning new developments in methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书