Is the Concept of Self-Regulation Useful for Supporting Effective Implementation in Community Settings?
The literature and utility of self-regulation extends beyond individuals; a critical factor for successful and sustainable implementation of evidence-based programs in a community setting may be the capacity of teams to self-regulate implementation processes. The conceptual foundation of this proposal is explored and definitions of the five dimensions of self-regulation for implementation processes are provided. Practice examples illustrate how the provision of external implementation support to build self-regulatory capacity among implementation teams adopting and scaling-up EBPs in the local community setting has shaped and refined the proposed definitions to better reflect the work on-the-ground. The role of external implementation support providers in developing implementation team self-regulation is explored and practice strategies to promote self-regulation are provided. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
KeywordsImplementation Self-regulation Implementation teams Scale-up Evidence-based practice
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Jenna McWilliam is an employee of Triple P International Pty Ltd. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- Aldridge, W. A., Boothroyd, I. I., Fleming, R. I., Jarboe, W. O. L., Morrow, K., Ritchie, J., G. F., et al (2016a). Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: Embedding active implementation and scaling functions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0351-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Aldridge, W. A., Murray, I. I., Prinz, D. W., R. J., & Veazey, C. A. (2016b). Final report and recommendations: The Triple P implementation evaluation, Cabarrus and Mecklenburg counties, NC. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Butterfoss, F., & Kegler, M. C. (2002). Toward a comprehensive understanding of community coalitions: Moving from practice to theory. In R. DiClemente, R. Crosby & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: Strategies for improving public health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Timbers, G. D., & Wolf, M. M. (2001). In search of program implementation: 792 replications of the Teaching-Family Model. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 149–166). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
- McWilliam, J., & Brown, J. (2012). Adapting implementation science to create an experience-informed implementation framework—The TPI implementation framework. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Implementation Conference.Google Scholar
- Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success. Zero to Three, 32(4), 11–18.Google Scholar
- Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Spoth, R., & Greenberg, M. (2011). Impact challenges in community science-with-practice: Lessons from PROSPER on transformative practitioner-scientist partnerships and prevention infrastructure development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1), 106–119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Waltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Matthieu, M. M., Damschroder, L. J., Chinman, M. J., Smith, J. L., et al. (2015). Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation Science, 10(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Nonnan., R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar