采用系统、积极、循证技术援助系统的障碍和促进因素。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Andrea E Lamont, Amber Watson, Brittany S Cook, Andrew Romero, Kellen Schalter, Abigail Nellis, Kristina Clark, Ariel Domlyn, Abraham Wandersman
{"title":"采用系统、积极、循证技术援助系统的障碍和促进因素。","authors":"Andrea E Lamont, Amber Watson, Brittany S Cook, Andrew Romero, Kellen Schalter, Abigail Nellis, Kristina Clark, Ariel Domlyn, Abraham Wandersman","doi":"10.1177/01632787241293756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article describes (a) key elements of a high-quality technical assistance (TA) system; (b) the operationalization of a high-quality TA system (Getting To Outcomes-Technical Assistance; GTO-TA) being implemented in a training and TA center (TTAC) interested in transforming its support services to include an evidence-informed approach to TA; and (c) key lessons learned in successfully transitioning from \"TA-as-usual\" to an evidence-informed TA system. GTO-TA is one operationalization of a systematic, proactive, evidence-informed approach to TA. GTO-TA includes best practices and core elements for a comprehensive TA system; it aims to increase the readiness (reduce barriers and increase facilitators) of an organization to deliver an innovation (program, policy, practice, process new to an organization) with quality. We describe the collaboration between the Wandersman Center and the Geographic Health Equity Alliance team to co-design and implement the GTO-TA system. Data from surveys, interviews, and consensus conversations led to important lessons learned, which are applicable to other TTACs seeking to develop a more proactive and systematic approach to TA. Lessons include: changing internal operations to facilitate TA providers making necessary changes in providing TA and understanding the relative advantage perceptions about a new TA system that influence adoption and must be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers and Facilitators to Adopting a Systematic, Proactive, Evidence-Informed Technical Assistance System.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea E Lamont, Amber Watson, Brittany S Cook, Andrew Romero, Kellen Schalter, Abigail Nellis, Kristina Clark, Ariel Domlyn, Abraham Wandersman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787241293756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article describes (a) key elements of a high-quality technical assistance (TA) system; (b) the operationalization of a high-quality TA system (Getting To Outcomes-Technical Assistance; GTO-TA) being implemented in a training and TA center (TTAC) interested in transforming its support services to include an evidence-informed approach to TA; and (c) key lessons learned in successfully transitioning from \\\"TA-as-usual\\\" to an evidence-informed TA system. GTO-TA is one operationalization of a systematic, proactive, evidence-informed approach to TA. GTO-TA includes best practices and core elements for a comprehensive TA system; it aims to increase the readiness (reduce barriers and increase facilitators) of an organization to deliver an innovation (program, policy, practice, process new to an organization) with quality. We describe the collaboration between the Wandersman Center and the Geographic Health Equity Alliance team to co-design and implement the GTO-TA system. Data from surveys, interviews, and consensus conversations led to important lessons learned, which are applicable to other TTACs seeking to develop a more proactive and systematic approach to TA. Lessons include: changing internal operations to facilitate TA providers making necessary changes in providing TA and understanding the relative advantage perceptions about a new TA system that influence adoption and must be considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241293756\",\"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/10.1177/01632787241293756","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

本文介绍了(a)高质量技术援助(TA)系统的关键要素;(b)一个培训与技术援助中心(TTAC)正在实施的高质量技术援助系统(获取成果-技术援助;GTO-TA)的运作情况,该中心有意将其支持服务转变为包括有实证依据的技术援助方法;以及(c)从 "照常提供技术援助 "成功过渡到有实证依据的技术援助系统的主要经验教训。GTO-TA 是对技术援助采取系统、积极、有实证依据的方法的一种操作方式。GTO-TA 包括全面技术援助系统的最佳实践和核心要素;其目的是提高一个组织的准备程度(减少障碍和增加促进因素),以便高质量地提供创新(对一个组织来说是新的计划、政策、实践、流程)。我们介绍了漫游者中心与地理健康公平联盟团队合作共同设计和实施 GTO-TA 系统的情况。从调查、访谈和共识对话中获得的数据总结出了重要的经验教训,这些经验教训适用于其他寻求制定更积极、更系统的 TA 方法的 TTAC。这些经验教训包括:改变内部运作,以促进技术援助提供者在提供技术援助方面做出必要的改变;了解对新技术援助系统的相对优势看法,这些看法会影响系统的采用,必须予以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Barriers and Facilitators to Adopting a Systematic, Proactive, Evidence-Informed Technical Assistance System.

This article describes (a) key elements of a high-quality technical assistance (TA) system; (b) the operationalization of a high-quality TA system (Getting To Outcomes-Technical Assistance; GTO-TA) being implemented in a training and TA center (TTAC) interested in transforming its support services to include an evidence-informed approach to TA; and (c) key lessons learned in successfully transitioning from "TA-as-usual" to an evidence-informed TA system. GTO-TA is one operationalization of a systematic, proactive, evidence-informed approach to TA. GTO-TA includes best practices and core elements for a comprehensive TA system; it aims to increase the readiness (reduce barriers and increase facilitators) of an organization to deliver an innovation (program, policy, practice, process new to an organization) with quality. We describe the collaboration between the Wandersman Center and the Geographic Health Equity Alliance team to co-design and implement the GTO-TA system. Data from surveys, interviews, and consensus conversations led to important lessons learned, which are applicable to other TTACs seeking to develop a more proactive and systematic approach to TA. Lessons include: changing internal operations to facilitate TA providers making necessary changes in providing TA and understanding the relative advantage perceptions about a new TA system that influence adoption and must be considered.

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