Social Interface Model: Theorizing Ecological Post-Delivery Processes for Intervention Effects

Abstract

Successful prevention programs depend on a complex interplay among aspects of the intervention, the participant, the specific intervention setting, and the broader set of contexts with which a participant interacts. There is a need to theorize what happens as participants bring intervention ideas and behaviors into other life-contexts, and theory has not yet specified how social interactions about interventions may influence outcomes. To address this gap, we use an ecological perspective to develop the social interface model. This paper presents the key components of the model and its potential to aid the design and implementation of prevention interventions. The model is predicated on the idea that intervention message effectiveness depends not only on message aspects but also on the participants’ adoption and adaptation of the message vis-à-vis their social ecology. The model depicts processes by which intervention messages are received and enacted by participants through social processes occurring within and between relevant microsystems. Mesosystem interfaces (negligible interface, transference, co-dependence, and interdependence) can facilitate or detract from intervention effects. The social interface model advances prevention science by theorizing that practitioners can create better quality interventions by planning for what occurs after interventions are delivered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Bennett, G. G., Wolin, K. Y., & Duncan, D. T. (2008). Social determinants of obesity. In F. B. Hu (Ed.), Obesity epidemiology (pp. 342–376). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berkel, C., Mauricio, A. M., Schoenfelder, E., & Sandler, I. N. (2011). Putting the pieces together: An integrated model of program implementation. Prevention Science, 12, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0186-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Biglan, A. (2016). The ultimate goal of prevention and the larger context for translation. Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0635-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brody, G. H., Beach, S. R. H., Hill, K. G., Howe, G. W., Prado, G., & Fullerton, S. M. (2013). Using genetically informed, randomized prevention trials to test etiological hypotheses about child and adolescent drug use and psychopathology. American Journal of Public Health, 103(S1), S19–S24. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Campbell, R., Starkey, F., Holliday, J., Audrey, S., Bloor, M., Parry-Langdon, N., et al. (2008). An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): A cluster randomised trial. The Lancet, 371, 1595–1602. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60692-3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi, H. J., Hecht, M., & Smith, R. A. (2017). Investigating the potential impact of social talk on prevention through social networks: The relationships between social talk and refusal self-efficacy and norms. Prevention Science, 4, 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0764-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crespo, N. C., Elder, J. P., Ayala, G. X., Campbell, N. R., Arredondo, E. M., Slymen, D. J., et al. (2012). Results of a multi-level intervention to prevent and control childhood obesity among Latino children: The Adventuras para Ninas study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43, 84–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cuijpers, P. (2002). Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs: A systematic review. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00295-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. DeGarmo, D. S., Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Fetrow, R. A. (2009). Evaluating mediators of the impact of the Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) multimodal preventive intervention on substance use initiation and growth across adolescence. Prevention Science, 10, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0126-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Fishbein, D. (2000). The importance of neurobiological research to the prevention of psychopathology. Prevention Science, 1, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010090114858.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Flynn, A. B., Falco, M., & Hocini, S. (2015). Independent evaluation of middle school-based drug prevention curricula: A systematic review. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 1046–1052. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaias, L., Lindstrom Johnson, S., White, R. M. B., Pettigrew, J., Dumka, L., (2017) Understanding the mesosystem between school and neighborhood contexts. Journal of Adolescent Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0077-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grimshaw, J. M., Presseau, J., Tetroe, J., Eccles, M. P., Francis, J. J., Godin, G., et al. (2014). Looking inside the black box: Results of a theory-based process evaluation exploring the results of a randomized controlled trial of printed educational messages to increase primary care physicians’ diabetic retinopathy referrals. Implementation Science, 9, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamilton, G., Cross, D., Reniscow, K., & Hall, M. (2005). A school-based harm minimization smoking intervention trial: Outcome results. Addiction, 100, 689–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Harrington, N. G., Giles, S. M., Hoyle, R. H., Feeney, G. J., & Yungbluth, S. C. (2001). Evaluation of the All Stars character education and problem behavior prevention program: Effects on mediator and outcome variables for middle school students. Health Education & Behavior, 28, 533–546.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Horne, P. J., Hardman, C. A., Lowe, C. F., Tapper, K., Le Noury, J., Madden, P., et al. (2009). Increasing parental provision and children’s consumption of lunchbox fruit and vegetables in Ireland: The Food Dudes intervention. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63, 613–618.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Koning, I. M., van den Eijnden, R. J., Verdurmen, J. E., Engels, R. C., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2011). Long-term effects of a parent and student intervention on alcohol use in adolescents: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/jamepre.2010.12.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Langford, R., Bonell, C. P., Jones, H. E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S. M., Waters, E., … Campbell, R. (2014). The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. In The Cochrane Collaboration (Ed.), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

  21. May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43, 535–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marsiglia, F. F., & Booth, J. M. (2015). Cultural adaptation of interventions in real practice settings. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514535989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McWilliam, J., Brown, J., Sanders, M. R., & Jones, L. (2016). The triple P implementation framework: The role of purveyors in the implementation and sustainability of evidence-based programs. Prevention Science, 17, 636–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0661-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller-Day, M. (2008). Talking to youth about drugs: What do late adolescents say about parental strategies? Family Relations, 57, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00478.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Petras, H., & Sloboda, Z. (2014). An integrated prevention science model: A conceptual foundation for prevention research. In Z. Sloboda & H. Petras (Eds.), Defining prevention science (pp. 251–273). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pettigrew, J., Miller-Day, M., Krieger, J., & Hecht, M. L. (2012). The rural context of illicit substance offers: A study of Appalachian rural adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411432639.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pettigrew, J., & Hecht, M. L. (2015). Developing school-based prevention curricula. In K. Bosworth (Ed.), Prevention science in school settings (pp. 151–174). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pettigrew, J., Miller-Day, M., Shin, Y., Krieger, J. L., Hecht, M. L., & Graham, J. W. (in press). Parental messages about substances in early adolescence: Extending a model of drug talk styles. Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1283565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Piehler, T. F., & Dishion, T. J. (2014). Dyadic coregulation and deviant talk in adolescent friendships: Interaction patterns associated with problematic substance use in early adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1160–1169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reimuller, A., Hussong, A., & Ennett, S. T. (2011). The influence of alcohol-specific communication on adolescent alcohol use and alcohol-related consequences. Prevention Science, 12, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0227-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rulison, K. L., Feinberg, M., Gest, S. D., & Osgood, D. W. (2015). Diffusion of intervention effects: The impact of a family-based substance use prevention program on friends of participants. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57, 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.06.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K., Bibby, J., Cummins, S., Finegood, D. T., et al. (in press). The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31267-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ryan, S. R., Brennan, P. A., Cunningham, P. B., Foster, S. L., Brock, R. L., & Whitmore, E. (2013). Biosocial processes predicting multisystemic therapy treatment response. Biological Psychology, 92, 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.12.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Segrott, J. (2013). Recruitment and group composition strategies for family-based substance misuse prevention interventions: An exploratory evaluation. Journal of Children’s Services, 8, 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-03-2013-0007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Slater, M. D., Kelly, K. J., Edwards, R. W., Thurman, P. J., Plested, B. A., Keefe, T. J., et al. (2006). Combining in-school and community-based media efforts: Reducing marijuana and alcohol uptake among younger adolescents. Health Education Research, 21, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Southwell, B. G. (2013). Social networks and popular understanding of science and health: Sharing disparities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Southwell, B. G., & Yzer, M. C. (2009). When (and why) interpersonal talk matters for campaigns. Communication Theory, 19, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01329.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 275–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. UNICEF (2012). Communication for behavioural impact (COMBI): A toolkit for behavioural and social communication in outbreak response. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/75170

  41. Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions. Science, 337, 49–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. West, S. L., & O’Neal, K. K. (2004). Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1027–1029. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.6.1027.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Portions of this paper were presented at the 2017 meeting of the European Society for Prevention Research. We thank conference attendees and anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Funding

Portions of this work were supported by Cardiff University through an incoming visiting fellowship scheme awarded to Jeremy Segrott to cover travel and subsistence for Jonathan Pettigrew to visit Cardiff and collaborate on this project. The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Pettigrew.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors; hence, informed consent was not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pettigrew, J., Segrott, J., Ray, C.D. et al. Social Interface Model: Theorizing Ecological Post-Delivery Processes for Intervention Effects. Prev Sci 19, 987–996 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0857-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intervention development
  • Logic models
  • Ecological perspective
  • Implementation science