Evaluating Fidelity to a Modified NIATx Process Improvement Strategy for Improving HIV Services in Correctional Facilities

  • Jennifer PankowEmail author
  • Jennifer Willett
  • Yang Yang
  • Holly Swan
  • Richard Dembo
  • William M. Burdon
  • Yvonne Patterson
  • Frank S. Pearson
  • Steven Belenko
  • Linda K. Frisman


In a study aimed at improving the quality of HIV services for inmates, an organizational process improvement strategy using change teams was tested in 14 correctional facilities in 8 US states and Puerto Rico. Data to examine fidelity to the process improvement strategy consisted of quantitative ratings of the structural and process components of the strategy and qualitative notes that explicate challenges in maintaining fidelity to the strategy. Fidelity challenges included (1) lack of communication and leadership within change teams, (2) instability in team membership, and (3) issues with data utilization in decision-making to implement improvements to services delivery.



This study is funded under a cooperative agreement from the US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH/NIDA), with support from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice. The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaborative contributions by NIDA; the Coordinating Center, AMAR International, Inc.; and the Research Centers participating in CJ-DATS. The Research Centers include Arizona State University and Maricopa County Adult Probation (U01DA025307), University of Connecticut and the Connecticut Department of Correction (U01DA016194), University of Delaware and the New Jersey Department of Corrections (U01DA016230), Friends Research Institute and the Maryland Department of Public Safety Correctional Services’ Division of Parole and Probation (U01DA025233), University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Corrections (U01DA016205), University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Hospital and the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (U01DA016191), Texas Christian University and the Illinois Department of Corrections and the Virginia Department of Corrections (U01DA016190), Temple University and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (U01DA025284), and the University of California at Los Angeles and the Washington State Department of Corrections (U01DA016211). The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of NIDA nor any of the sponsoring organizations, agencies, CJ-DATS partner sites, or the US government.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.


  1. 1.
    Maruschak LM, Berzofsky M, Unangst J. Medical problems of state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12 (NCJ 248491). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2015, February. Available online at Accessed on October 17, 2016.
  2. 2.
    Mumola CJ, Karberg JC. Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004 (NCJ 213530). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2006, October. Available online at Accessed on October 17, 2016.
  3. 3.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV among incarcerated populations (Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention). 2015, July. Available online at Accessed on February 06, 2017.
  4. 4.
    Nunn A, Cornwall A, Fu J, et al. Linking HIV-positive jail inmates to treatment, care, and social services after release: Results from a qualitative assessment of the COMPASS program. Journal of Urban Health 2010;87(6):954–968.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Springer SA, Spaulding AC, Meyer JP, et al. Public health implications for adequate transition care for HIV-infected prisoners: Five essential components. Clin Infect Dis 2011;53(5):469–479.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Act against AIDS: Refocusing national attention on the HIV crisis in the United States. 2011, November. Available online at Accessed on October 17, 2016.
  7. 7.
    Hughes T, Wilson DJ. Reentry trends in the United States: Inmates returning to the community after serving time in prison: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004. Available online at Accessed on October 17, 2016.
  8. 8.
    Ducharme LJ, Chandler RK, Wiley TRA. Implementing drug abuse treatment services in criminal justice settings: Introduction to the CJ-DATS study protocol series. Health & Justice. 2013;1(5).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernández D, Fernandez-Llimos F, et al. A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2015;13(16).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science. 2015;10(21).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Replicating Effective Program Plus. 2016, May. Available online at Accessed on October 17, 2016.
  12. 12.
    Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA, et al. Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: Application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implementation Science. 2007;2(42).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belenko S, Visher CA, Copenhaver M, et al. A cluster randomized trial of utilizing a local change team approach to improve the delivery of HIV services in correctional settings: Study protocol. Health & Justice. 2013;1(8).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, et al. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;23(4):290–298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, et al. Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2009;36(1):24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science. 2013;8(139).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCarty D, Gustafson DH, Wisdom JP, et al. The network for the improvement of addiction treatment (NIATx): Enhancing access and retention. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007;88(2–3):138–145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evans AC, Rieckmann T, Fitzgerald MM, et al. Teaching the NIATx model of process improvement as an evidence-based process. Journal of Teaching in the Addictions 2007;6(2):21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffman KA, Ford JH, II, Tillotson CJ, et al. Days to treatment and early retention among patients in treatment for alcohol in treatment for alcohol drug disorders. Addict Behav 2011;36(6):643–647.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarty D, Gustafson D, Capoccia VA, et al. Improving care for the treatment of alcohol and drug disorders. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2009;36(1):52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gustafson DH, Quanbeck AR, Robinson JM, et al. Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial. Addiction 2013;108(6):1145–1157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoffman KA, Quanbeck AR, Ford JH, II, et al. Improving substance abuse data systems to measure "waiting time to treatment": Lessons learned from a quality improvement initiative. Health Informatics Journal 2011;17(4):256–265.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wexler HK, Zehner M, Melnick G. Improving drug court operations: NIATx organizational improvement model. Drug Court Rev 2012;8(1):80–95.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Swan H, Hiller M, Albizu-Garcia CE, et al. Efficacy of a process improvement intervention on inmate awareness of HIV services delivery: A multi-site trial. Health & Justice. 2015;3(11).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bond GR, Drake RE, McHugo GJ, et al. Strategies for improving fidelity in the National Evidence-Based Practices Project. Res Soc Work Pract 2009;19(5):569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nosyk B, Montaner JSG, Colley G, et al. The cascade of HIV care in British Columbia, Canada, 1996-2011: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14(1):40–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pearson FS, Shafer MS, Dembo R, et al. Efficacy of a process improvement intervention on delivery of HIV services to offenders: A multisite trial. Am J Public Health 2014;104(12):2385–2391.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Visher C, Yang Y, Mitchell SG, et al. Understanding the sustainability of implementing HIV services in criminal justice settings. Health & Justice. 2015;3(5).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Visher CA, Hiller M, Belenko S, et al. The effect of a local change team intervention on staff attitudes towards HIV service delivery in correctional settings: A randomized trial. AIDS Educ Prev 2014;26(5):411–428.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitchell SG, Willett J, Swan H, et al. Defining success: Insights from a random assignment, multi-site study of implementing HIV prevention, testing and linkage to care in U.S. jails and prisons. AIDS Educ Prev 2015;27(5):432–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mowbray CT, Holter MC, Teague GB, et al. Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. Am J Eval 2003;24(3):315–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Palinkas L, Aarons GA, Horwitz SM, et al. Mixed method designs in implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2011;38(1):44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Braun V, Clark V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Michie S, Wood CE, Johnston M, et al. Behaviour change techniques: The development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data). Health Technology Assessment. 2015;19(99).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elo S, Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62(1):107–115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Graneheim U, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004;24(2):105–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fielding NG. Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2012;6(2):124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008;41(3):327–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Aarons GA. Transformational and transactional leadership: Association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychiatr Serv 2006;57(8):1162–1168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2011;38(1):4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Corrigan PW, Steiner L, McCracken SG, et al. Strategies for disseminating evidence-based practices to staff who treat people with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2001;52(12):1598–1606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Strupp HH, Anderson T. On the limitations of therapy manuals. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 1997;4(1):76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Edmondson AC, Bohmer R, Pisano GP. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology adaptation. Adm Sci Q 2001;46(4):685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: The Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Aarons GA, Wells RS, Zagursky K, et al. Implementing evidence-based practice in community mental health agencies: A multiple stakeholder analysis. Am J Public Health 2009;99(11):2087–2095.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Buchanan D, Fitzgerald L, Ketley D, et al. No going back: A review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. Int J Manag Rev 2005;7(3):189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Aarons GA, Fettes DL, Hurlburt MS, et al. Collaboration, negotiation, and coalescence for interagency-collaborative teams to scale-up evident-based practice. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2014;43(6):915–928.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lambert EB. To stay or quit: A review of the literature on correctional staff turnover. Am J Crim Justice 2001;26(1):61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Aarons GA, Green AE, Palinkas LA, et al. Dynamic adaptation process to implement an evidence-based child maltreatment intervention. Implementation Science. 2012;7(32).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Behavioral Health 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Pankow
    • 1
    Email author return OK on get
  • Jennifer Willett
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yang Yang
    • 1
    • 4
  • Holly Swan
    • 5
    • 6
  • Richard Dembo
    • 7
  • William M. Burdon
    • 8
    • 9
  • Yvonne Patterson
    • 10
    • 11
  • Frank S. Pearson
    • 12
  • Steven Belenko
    • 13
  • Linda K. Frisman
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Behavioral ResearchTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA
  2. 2.University of Connecticut School of Social WorkWest HartfordUSA
  3. 3.School of Social WorkUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Center for Drug and Health StudiesUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  6. 6.Abt Associates, Inc.CambridgeUSA
  7. 7.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  8. 8.Integrated Substance Abuse ProgramsUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  9. 9.Independent Research Consultant and Business OwnerToluca LakeUSA
  10. 10.Eastern Connecticut State UniversityWillimanticUSA
  11. 11.Central Connecticut State UniversityNew BritainUSA
  12. 12.National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.New YorkUSA
  13. 13.Department of Criminal JusticeTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations