The Effect of the PROSPER Partnership Model on Cultivating Local Stakeholder Knowledge of Evidence-Based Programs: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study of 28 Communities
A substantial challenge in improving public health is how to facilitate the local adoption of evidence-based interventions (EBIs). To do so, an important step is to build local stakeholders’ knowledge and decision-making skills regarding the adoption and implementation of EBIs. One EBI delivery system, called PROSPER (PROmoting School-community-university Partnerships to Enhance Resilience), has effectively mobilized community prevention efforts, implemented prevention programming with quality, and consequently decreased youth substance abuse. While these results are encouraging, another objective is to increase local stakeholder knowledge of best practices for adoption, implementation and evaluation of EBIs. Using a mixed methods approach, we assessed local stakeholder knowledge of these best practices over 5 years, in 28 intervention and control communities. Results indicated that the PROSPER partnership model led to significant increases in expert knowledge regarding the selection, implementation, and evaluation of evidence-based interventions. Findings illustrate the limited programming knowledge possessed by members of local prevention efforts, the difficulty of complete knowledge transfer, and highlight one method for cultivating that knowledge.
KeywordsCapacity building Prevention systems Dissemination
- Backer, T., & Rogers, E. (1999). Dissemination best practices workshop briefing paper: State-of-the-art review on dissemination research and dissemination partnership. Encino, CA: NCAP.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Crowley, M., Jones, D., Greenberg, M., Feinberg., M., & Spoth, D. (2011). Resource consumption of a dissemination model for prevention programs: The PROSPER partnership model. Journal of Adolescent Health. (in press)Google Scholar
- Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blase, K., Friedman, R., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
- Littell, R., Milliken, G., Stroup, W., Wolfinger, R., & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for mixed models (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
- Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Elliott, D. S., Fagan, A., & Hansen, D. (2001). Blueprints for violence prevention. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
- Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2004). Successful program implementation: Lessons from Blueprints. Electronic report. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs). Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
- O’Connell, M., Boat, T., & Warner, K. (Eds.). (2009). Mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people. Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS/STAT 9.1 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (2011). National Registry of Effective Programs. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/.