药物滥用和心理健康服务管理局的技术转让中心如何决定传播哪些循证实践并确定如何传播?对一个国家网络的横向研究。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kaitlyn Reho, Jon Agley, Ruth Gassman, Jeffrey Roberts, Susan K R Heil, Jharna Katara
{"title":"药物滥用和心理健康服务管理局的技术转让中心如何决定传播哪些循证实践并确定如何传播?对一个国家网络的横向研究。","authors":"Kaitlyn Reho, Jon Agley, Ruth Gassman, Jeffrey Roberts, Susan K R Heil, Jharna Katara","doi":"10.1177/01632787231225653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is important to use evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs) to address major public health issues. However, those who use EBPs in real-world settings often require support in bridging the research-to-practice gap. In the US, one of the largest systems that provides such support is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network. As part of a large external evaluation of the Network, this study examined how TTCs determine which EBPs to promote and how to promote them. Using semi-structured interviews and pre-testing, we developed a \"Determinants of Technology Transfer\" survey that was completed by 100% of TTCs in the Network. Because the study period overlapped with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also conducted a retrospective pre/post-pandemic comparison of determinants. TTCs reported relying on a broad group of factors when selecting EBPs to disseminate and the methods to do so. Stakeholder and target audience input and needs were consistently the most important determinant (both before and during COVID-19), while some other determinants fluctuated around the pandemic (e.g., public health mandates, instructions in the funding opportunity announcements). We discuss implications of the findings for technology transfer and frame the analyses in terms of the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":"47 2","pages":"167-177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157975/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Technology Transfer Centers Decide What Evidence-Based Practices to Disseminate and Determine How to Do So? A Cross-Sectional Study of a National Network.\",\"authors\":\"Kaitlyn Reho, Jon Agley, Ruth Gassman, Jeffrey Roberts, Susan K R Heil, Jharna Katara\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787231225653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>It is important to use evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs) to address major public health issues. However, those who use EBPs in real-world settings often require support in bridging the research-to-practice gap. In the US, one of the largest systems that provides such support is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network. As part of a large external evaluation of the Network, this study examined how TTCs determine which EBPs to promote and how to promote them. Using semi-structured interviews and pre-testing, we developed a \\\"Determinants of Technology Transfer\\\" survey that was completed by 100% of TTCs in the Network. Because the study period overlapped with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also conducted a retrospective pre/post-pandemic comparison of determinants. TTCs reported relying on a broad group of factors when selecting EBPs to disseminate and the methods to do so. Stakeholder and target audience input and needs were consistently the most important determinant (both before and during COVID-19), while some other determinants fluctuated around the pandemic (e.g., public health mandates, instructions in the funding opportunity announcements). We discuss implications of the findings for technology transfer and frame the analyses in terms of the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"47 2\",\"pages\":\"167-177\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157975/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231225653\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231225653","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用循证计划和实践(EBPs)来解决重大公共卫生问题非常重要。然而,那些在现实环境中使用 EBPs 的人往往需要得到支持,以弥合研究与实践之间的差距。在美国,提供此类支持的最大系统之一是药物滥用和心理健康服务管理局(SAMHSA)的技术转让中心(TTC)网络。作为该网络大型外部评估的一部分,本研究考察了技术转让中心如何决定推广哪些 EBPs 以及如何推广这些 EBPs。通过半结构式访谈和预测试,我们制定了 "技术转让的决定因素 "调查表,该调查表由网络中 100% 的技术转移中心完成。由于研究时间与 COVID-19 大流行的开始时间重叠,我们还对决定因素进行了大流行前后的回顾性比较。据技术培训中心报告,在选择 EBPs 传播和传播方法时,它们依赖于广泛的因素。利益相关者和目标受众的意见和需求始终是最重要的决定因素(无论是在 COVID-19 之前还是期间),而其他一些决定因素则在大流行期间有所波动(如公共卫生任务、资助机会公告中的说明)。我们讨论了研究结果对技术转让的影响,并根据传播与实施互动系统框架进行了分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Technology Transfer Centers Decide What Evidence-Based Practices to Disseminate and Determine How to Do So? A Cross-Sectional Study of a National Network.

It is important to use evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs) to address major public health issues. However, those who use EBPs in real-world settings often require support in bridging the research-to-practice gap. In the US, one of the largest systems that provides such support is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network. As part of a large external evaluation of the Network, this study examined how TTCs determine which EBPs to promote and how to promote them. Using semi-structured interviews and pre-testing, we developed a "Determinants of Technology Transfer" survey that was completed by 100% of TTCs in the Network. Because the study period overlapped with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also conducted a retrospective pre/post-pandemic comparison of determinants. TTCs reported relying on a broad group of factors when selecting EBPs to disseminate and the methods to do so. Stakeholder and target audience input and needs were consistently the most important determinant (both before and during COVID-19), while some other determinants fluctuated around the pandemic (e.g., public health mandates, instructions in the funding opportunity announcements). We discuss implications of the findings for technology transfer and frame the analyses in terms of the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信