strategies from implementation science applied to the ... · society for prevention research annual...
TRANSCRIPT
Society for Prevention Research Annual Meeting
May 31st, 2018
William A. Aldridge II1,2, Rebecca H. Roppolo1, LaTanya R. Moore1, Robin H. Jenkins1, 2, & Renée I. Boothroyd1
1The Impact Center at FPG Child Development Institute, UNC–Chapel Hill2National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives
Strategies from Implementation Science Applied to the Triple P System
Triple PPositive Parenting Program System of Interventions
Public hea
lth app
roach to
parenting an
d family su
pport
Triple P in North Carolina
3
To strengthen caregivers to become more positive catalysts of healthy child development acknowledging that every child deserves to grow‐up in safe and nurturing environments, with stable relationships that promote their emotional and behavioral health.
• Substantiated child abuse and neglect• Out‐of‐home placements• Emergency room visits indicating child maltreatment
Mission Statement:
4
Service Agency Capacity & Practitioner Fidelity
5
These relationships are not only significant, but characterized by moderate to large effect sizes!
Agency Leadership & Implementation Team Capacity
Agency Leadership & Implementation Team Capacity
Agency Implementation Infrastructure &
Practices
Agency Implementation Infrastructure &
Practices
Practitioner Adherence to Triple P Session
Protocols
Practitioner Adherence to Triple P Session
Protocols
Implementation Capacity for Triple P Project –North Carolina
To provide to NC lead agencies and statewide stakeholders interested in or currently scaling‐up Triple P information, learning, and enhanced
implementation support based on TPIE, TPIE‐Qualitative, and continually emerging evidence and models from implementation
science and practice.
State, regional, and local Triple P coordinators; community and local service agency leaders; funders; policymakers;
and technical assistance providers
6
• Implementation Site
• Program Purveyor
• Funder
Child & FamilyOutcomes
Co‐Creation Partner Support
Triple P SystemOptimization
Population‐levelOutcomes
(Aldridge, Boothroyd, Veazey, Powell, Murray, & Prinz, 2016)
Integrated Theory of Change for the supporting the implementation and scale‐up of evidence‐based prevention and wellbeing strategies
External Implementation
Support
Proposed Core Components of External Implementation Support (Aldridge, Brown, Bumbarger, Boothroyd, & Roppolo, under review)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
7.
9.
10.
Two Demonstration Sites for Support
1. Can we deliver support that increases local implementation capacity?• Lead Implementing Agencies (LIAs)• Local Triple P Service Agencies – cross‐sector community organizations
2. Can we achieve favorable implementation outcomes of the support process?
11
Wake(Nov 2016)
12
GASTON
Madison
Mecklenburg
App District Durham Halifax
New LIA?
Albemarle
PittCurrent Lead Implementing Agencies (LIAs)
Proposed new LIA in Sandhill/SE NC
Cabarrus
Implementation Capacity: Core Area PRIORITY GOALS (illustrative) STRATEGIES (examples)
Co‐Creation Partners
Greater agencies’ ownership of collaborative process
Redesign coalition & committee structure to ensure community ownership
Leadership & ImplementationTeams
Formalize a Community/Coalition Implementation Team with dedicated time, effort, resources AND Re‐establish a set of engaged and effective community service agencies with identified leadership and implementation team structures
Move to a formal Community Coalition structure that integrates implementation best practices and collective impact ANDMove to quarterly coalition meetings with the new design and leadership team structure
13
EXAMPLE Goals, Strategies, & Early Wins: Wake County Triple P Coalition
14
Progress within Community Triple P Service Agencies
Challenges of the Lead Implementing Agency Capacity
15
GASTON
Current Lead Implementing Agencies (LIAs)
Proposed new LIA in Sandhill/SE NC
Madison/Buncombe(Feb 2017)
Mecklenburg
App District Durham Halifax
New LIA?
Albemarle
Pitt
Cabarrus
Wake
Implementation Capacity: Core Area PRIORITY GOALS (illustrative) STRATEGIES (examples)
Workforce Development Infrastructure
Improve the number of practitioners actively using Triple P
AND
Retention of agencies and practitioners
Ensure that those trained in Triple P continue to use Triple P (PASS Model Peer Support)
Develop clear, shared, and applied recruitment and selection practices for agencies and practitioners to deliver Triple P
16
EXAMPLE Goals, Strategies, & Early Wins: Madison & Buncombe Triple P Cluster
Progress within Lead Implementing Agency Capacity
Unable to assess capacity in
community Triple P service
agencies the last two timepoints
Implementation Support for LIAs: Implementation Outcomes
18
Additional LIA Support Outcomes: Confidence & Competence with Local Implementation Processes
Convergence of scores between ICTP support teams and LIA implementation teams
19
Practitioners' Responsive & Effective Delivery of
Triple P
NC Triple P State Learning Collaborative
Parent and Family Wellbeing &
Self‐Regulation
Supp
ort
Feedback
Feedback
FeedbackSu
pport
Supp
ort
Cross‐Agency State
Leadership Team
Ideal Support Model for the Triple P System in
North Carolina
Triple P America
Prevent Child Abuse North Carolina
The Impact Center at FPG, UNC‐CH
Workforce Development
Proactive & Responsive Implementa‐tion Support
Partnership Engagement & Communication
Policy & Finance Support
Research, Evaluation, & Data‐Linking Capacity
21
An intermediary organization is defined as a statewide center or partnership that supports
state and local child‐ and family‐serving agencies in designing, implementing, and sustaining evidence‐based programs like
Triple P (Mettrick et al., 2015).
22
8 7
38
31
42
25
44
15
0
46
38 38
27
39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Proactive & ResponsiveImplementation Support
Research, Evaluation, &Data Linking
Partnership Engagement& Communication
Workforce Development Policy & Finance Support Functional CapacitySummary Index
Organizational Leadership& Alignment
Percen
tage of P
oints P
ossib
le
Index
Intermediary Organization Capacity Assessment for the Triple P System of Interventions
July‐17 Dec‐17
Baseline Scores
Early Support Process Data – Frequency of Contact
23
Wake County Triple P
Madi/Bunc
Triple P
PCANC
Madi/Bunc
Triple PEarly Support Process Data – Dosage of Core Components
24
Wake County Triple P
PCANC
RE = Readiness & ExplorationCD = Capacity DevelopmentSP = Supported PerformanceLR = Local Regulation
Early Support Process Data – Working Alliance
25
Site A
Site B Site C
• Measuring implementation support processes and outcomes
• Engaging in continuous quality improvement of the support process
• Future efforts will examine more formally the degree to which external implementation support contributes to the optimization of EBP scale‐up
Policy & Practice
• It takes time to optimize EBPs in complex, multi‐level system environments
• Identifying core components of external implementation support
• Need for strong relationships and tailored implementation support around collaboratively set goals
• Implementation support may be helpful even if it is added later
26
Research, Evaluation, & Quality Improvement
Key Takeaways
Current & Future Directions• North Carolina
• Moving from demonstration to statewide support system• Support system partnerships: PCANC and Triple P America• Working with an expanded cross‐agency state leadership team
• South Carolina• Beginning an initiative to scale Triple P statewide July 2018• ICTP will be there! We’re already adapting to new context and partners
27
Will AldridgeLaTanya MooreRebecca RoppoloWendy Morgan
Renée BoothroydRobin JenkinsJessica ReedSimon PipkinJulie Austen
Jenna BarnesKimberly RuckJulie Chin
Ximena Franco
Thank You
28
Will Aldridge 919‐966‐4713
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 1
What strategy are they using to achieve this vision?
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 2
Where are they currently using this strategy?
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 3
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 4
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 5
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 6
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 7
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Veazey, C. A., Powell, B. J., Murray, D. W., & Prinz, R. J. (2016, December). Ensuring Active Implementation Support for North Carolina Counties Scaling the Triple P System of Interventions. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 8
Aldridge, W. A., II, Boothroyd, R. I., Veazey, C. A., Powell, B. J., Murray, D. W., & Prinz, R. J. (2016, December). Ensuring Active Implementation Support for North Carolina Counties Scaling the Triple P System of Interventions. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 9
Aldridge, W. A., II, Brown, J., Bumbarger, B. K., & Boothroyd, R. (2017). The role of external implementation agents in contributing to nurturing systems environments for scaling effective prevention strategies. Invited manuscript submitted for publication.
10
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 11
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 12
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 13
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 14
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 15
• ICTP support team has been working in the Workforce Development area
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 16
After spending 30% of external implementation support time focused on Work Force Development the most recent Community Capacity Assessment scores have increased in the three areas measured. Recruitment and Selection increased from 50% at our first data collection point to 67% at our most recent data collection point. Training increased from 82% to 95% at our most recent data collection point, and Coaching scores increased from 25% to 50% of points possible on the CCA at our most recent data collection point.
LIA Coordinators, created MOA’s to use with agencies and selected 5 agencies to schedule MOA visits with based on data collected showing each agency’s use of Triple P. The ICTP Support Team working with LIA Coordinators created an MOA checklist tool for coordinators to use on site and role played the use of this tool in a recent site visit to build capacity for its use.
LIA Coordinators plan to use the agency MOA visits to identify interested agency leaders who can contribute to the implementation of Triple P by joining a coalition leadership team as well as scheduling follow‐up visits with the agencies to complete sections of the IDA relevant to the communities current needs as assessed at the MOA visits.
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 17
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 18
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 19
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 20
Intermediaries leverage and support scaling of EBPs across multiple system layers. They can help accelerate the adoption and implementation of an EBP by providing expertise in various functional practices or services. Mettrick et al. in partnership with Annie E. Casey Foundation completed one of the most thorough studies of organizations providing intermediary supports through a range of Centers of Excellence. As written, Centers of Excellence are functionally comparable to intermediary organizations in the work that they do, and have been documented to deliver 5 core sets of activities captured in the research. COE’s (IO) main goal is to design and deliver a full range of ongoing implementation and collaborative learning activities in service to multiple system layers interacting with an implementing agency or agencies.
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May)
21
Contextual Notes for interpretation of PCANC Time 2 Results• Both sets of scores should be considered baseline scores, prior to the beginning of
systematic and intentional capacity development activities between NCIC‐TP and PCANC.
• Differences between index scores from July to December 2017 represent only a 1‐2 point change on the index; these are NOT likely to be meaningful at this point. These small variations might best be understood within the context of participants’ better understanding of assessment terms and processes.
• The December 2017 Proactive & Responsive Implementation Support Index rose slight in part because PCANC and NCIC‐TP/FPG are entering into a partnership whereby NCIC‐TP/FPG will provide active implementation support statewide for Triple P communities. The early development of this partnership increases PCANC’s capacity to support this area of intermediary support.
• The initial score for Research, Evaluation, and Data‐Linking incorporates some general capacity PCANC has for its other EBPs. Scoring such general capacity was not allowed in the second administration.
• An additional item was added to the Organizational Leadership & Alignment Index for the second administration. This additional item is the only reason for the slight downturn in OLAI score from the first administration to the second administration.
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 22
PCANC’s last reports: 23, 30, 25 hours. Wakes: 23, 18, 18. MadiB: 20, 20, 22).
Here are the cumulative support hours since last quarter’s report:
Raleigh = 8855 minutes, ~148 hours (Nov 2016 – Feb 2018) [148/15 = 10 hours per month]
PCANC = 6457 minutes, ~108 hours (June 2017 – Feb 2018) [108/8 = 13.5 hours per month]
Madison/Buncombe = 6460 minutes, ~108 hours (February 2017 – February 2018) [108/12 = 9 hours per month]
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 23
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 24
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 25
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 26
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 27
Aldridge, Roppolo, Moore, Jenkins, & Boothroyd (2018, May) 28