Dissemination of Evidence-Based Prevention Interventions and Policies

  • Matthew ChinmanEmail author
  • Joie Acosta
  • Patricia Ebener
  • Sarah Hunter
  • Pamela Imm
  • Abraham Wandersman
Part of the Advances in Prevention Science book series (Adv. Prevention Science)


In this chapter, we overview the current state of dissemination of evidence-based substance-use prevention programs (EBPs) in the substance-use prevention field from an implementation science perspective. Implementation science is defined as a scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other EBPs into routine practice to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and care. To improve quality and effectiveness of EBP implementation a helpful set of models and frameworks are needed that are specific to supporting dissemination and quality implementation and that can be applied across the wide diversity of EBPs. We begin with an overview of how prevalent substance-use prevention EBPs are in real-world settings. Then we discuss factors that can impede and facilitate the dissemination and use of EBPs. That review will be anchored within a prominent implementation science framework called the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), whose subdomains could be considered risk and protective factors for quality implementation. Then we review both researcher- and government-led efforts to improve the dissemination of EBPs guided by the Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for dissemination and implementation of preventive innovations. The ISF is used because it is a meta-framework and takes a broad overarching and synthesis approach to implementation science—much like we are doing in this chapter. We end with a discussion of implications for the future dissemination and quality implementation of substance-use prevention EBPs, including presenting new ideas, such as social innovation bonds, for supporting implementation.


Implementation Evidence-based practice Prevention Substance use Interactive Systems Framework Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 


  1. Acosta, J., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Paddock, S., Phillips, A., … Slaughter, M. E. (2013). An intervention to improve program implementation: Findings from a two-year cluster randomized trial of Assets-Getting To Outcomes. Implementation Science, 8, 87. Scholar
  2. Arthur, M. W., Briney, J. S., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., Brooke-Weiss, B. L., & Catalano, R. F. (2007). Measuring risk and protection in communities using the Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(2), 197–211. Scholar
  3. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors. The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrera, M., Jr., & Sandler, I. N. (2006). Prevention: A report of progress and momentum into the future. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 13(3), 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A. C., Li, K. K., & Allred, C. (2008). School climate and teachers’ beliefs and attitudes associated with implementation of the positive action program: A diffusion of innovations model. Prevention Science, 9(4), 264–275. Scholar
  6. Brown, E. C., Hawkins, J. D., Arthur, M. W., Briney, J. S., & Abbott, R. D. (2007). Effects of Communities That Care on prevention services systems: Findings from the community youth development study at 1.5 years. Prevention Science, 8(3), 180–191. Scholar
  7. Burlew, A. K., Copeland, V. C., Ahuama-Jonas, C., & Calsyn, D. A. (2013). Does cultural adaptation have a role in substance abuse treatment? Social Work in Public Health, 28(3–4), 440–460. Scholar
  8. Callanan, L., Law, J., & Mendonca, L. (2012). From potential to action: Bringing social impact bonds to the US. New York, NY: McKinsey&Company.Google Scholar
  9. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2015). Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. Rockville, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Burkhart, Q., Malone, P. S., Paddock, S. M., … Tellett-Royce, N. (2013). Intervening with practitioners to improve the quality of prevention: One-year findings from a randomized trial of assets-getting to outcomes. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 34(3), 173–191. Scholar
  11. Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., & Slaughter, M. (2015). A novel test of the GTO implementation support intervention in low resource settings: Year 1 findings and challenges. Implementation Science, 10(suppl 1), A34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., & Slaughter, M. (2018). A cluster-randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes’ impact on sexual health outcomes in community-based settings. Prevention Science, 19, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., & Slaughter, M. E. (2016). Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes(R). Implementation Science, 11(1), 78. Scholar
  14. Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Burkhart, Q., Osilla, K. C., Imm, P., Paddock, S. M., & Wright, P. A. (2014). Evaluating the impact of getting to outcomes-underage drinking on prevention capacity and alcohol merchant attitudes and selling behaviors. Prevention Science, 15(4), 485–496. Scholar
  15. Chinman, M., Hunter, S. B., Ebener, P., Paddock, S. M., Stillman, L., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2008). The getting to outcomes demonstration and evaluation: An illustration of the prevention support system. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 206–224. Scholar
  16. Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Getting To Outcomes™ 2004: Promoting accountability through methods and tools for planning, implementation, and evaluation. Retrieved from
  17. Cho, H., Dion Hallfors, D., Iritani, B. J., & Hartman, S. (2009). The influence of “No Child Left Behind” legislation on drug prevention in US schools. Evaluation Review, 33(5), 446–463. Scholar
  18. Cooper, B. R., Bumbarger, B. K., & Moore, J. E. (2015). Sustaining evidence-based prevention programs: Correlates in a large-scale dissemination initiative. Prevention Science, 16(1), 145–157. Scholar
  19. D'Amico, E. J., Edelen, M. O., Miles, J. N., & Morral, A. R. (2008). The longitudinal association between substance use and delinquency among high-risk youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 93(1–2), 85–92. Scholar
  20. D'Amico, E. J., Ellickson, P. L., Collins, R. L., Martino, S., & Klein, D. J. (2005). Processes linking adolescent problems to substance-use problems in late young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(6), 766–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, 50. Scholar
  22. Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1(1), 1. Scholar
  23. Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prevention Science, 5(1), 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C. L., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A., Simons-Rudolph, A., & Jones, S. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prevention Science, 4(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fagan, A., Hawkins, J., & Catalano, R. (2008). Using community epidemiologic data to improve social settings: The Communities That Care prevention system. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development transforming schools and community programs (pp. 292–312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fagan, A. A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (2008). Bridging science to practice: Achieving prevention program implementation fidelity in the community youth development study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 235–249. Scholar
  27. Ford, J. (2005). Substance use, the social bond, and delinquency. Sociological Inquiry, 75, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. (2009). Evidence-based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health, 1, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glaser, R., Van Horn, M., Arthur, M., Hawkins, J., & Catalano, R. (2005). Measurement properties of the Communities That Care Youth Survey across demographic groups. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gloppen, K. M., Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., & Shapiro, V. B. (2012). Sustainability of the Communities That Care prevention system by coalitions participating in the Community Youth Development Study. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(3), 259–264. Scholar
  31. Greenberg, M. T., Feinberg, M. E., Johnson, L. E., Perkins, D. F., Welsh, J. A., & Spoth, R. L. (2015). Factors that predict financial sustainability of community coalitions: Five years of findings from the PROSPER partnership project. Prevention Science, 16(1), 158–167. Scholar
  32. Guyll, M., Spoth, R., Crowley, D. M., & Jones, D. (2011). Economic analysis of the PROSPER partnership trial: Direct costs and substance use outcomes 18 months past baseline. Paper presented at the Society for Prevention Research 19th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  33. Hallfors, D., & Godette, D. (2002). Will the ‘principles of effectiveness’ improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Education Research, 17(4), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), 951–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., Fagan, A. A., & Catalano, R. F. (2009). Results of a type 2 translational research trial to prevent adolescent drug use and delinquency: A test of Communities That Care. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(9), 789–798. Scholar
  36. Hogan, J. A., Baca, I., Daley, C., Garcia, T., Jaker, J., Lowther, M., & Klitzner, M. (2003). Disseminating science-based prevention: Lessons learned from CSAP’s CAPTs. Journal of Drug Education, 33(3), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holder, H. D. (2009). Current challenges faced by efforts to prevent alcohol and other drug problems: Lessons from science-to-practice. Drug and Alcohol Review, 28(2), 99–102. Scholar
  38. Hunter, S. B., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Imm, P., Wandersman, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2009). Technical assistance as a prevention capacity-building tool: A demonstration using the getting to outcomes framework. Health Education & Behavior, 36(5), 810–828. Scholar
  39. Hunter, S. B., Ober, A. J., Paddock, S. M., Hunt, P. E., & Levan, D. (2014). Continuous quality improvement (CQI) in addiction treatment settings: Design and intervention protocol of a group randomized pilot study. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 9, 4. Scholar
  40. Imm, P., Chinman, M., Wandersman, A., Rosenbloom, D., Guckenburg, S., & Leis, R. (2007). Preventing underage drinking: Using getting to outcomes with the SAMHSA strategic prevention framework to achieve results (TR-403-SAMHSA). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from
  41. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2016). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2015: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  42. Kuklinski, M. R., Briney, J. S., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Cost-benefit analysis of communities that care outcomes at eighth grade. Prevention Science, 13(2), 150–161. Scholar
  43. Kumar, R., O'Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., & Laetz, V. B. (2013). Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use prevention programs in U.S. schools: A descriptive summary. Prevention Science, 14(6), 581–592. Scholar
  44. Lantz, P. M., Rosenbaum, S., Ku, L., & Iovan, S. (2016). Pay for success and population health: Early results from eleven projects reveal challenges and promise. Health Affairs, 35(11), 2053–2061. Scholar
  45. Levy, S., Sherritt, L., Gabrielli, J., Shrier, L. A., & Knight, J. R. (2009). Screening adolescents for substance use-related high-risk sexual behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(5), 473–477. Scholar
  46. Little, M. A., Pokhrel, P., Sussman, S., & Rohrbach, L. A. (2015). The process of adoption of evidence-based tobacco use prevention programs in California schools. Prevention Science, 16(1), 80–89. Scholar
  47. Mihalic, S., Ballard, D., Michalski, A., Tortorice, J., Cunningham, L., & Argamaso, S. (2002). Blueprints for violence prevention, violence initiative: Final process evaluation report. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  48. Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Elliott, D., Fagan, A., & Hansen, D. (2001). Blueprints for violence prevention. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  49. Mihalic, S. F., & Irwin, K. (2003). Blueprints for violence prevention from research to real-world settings—Factors influencing the successful replication of model programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(4), 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Payne, A. A., & Eckert, R. (2010). The relative importance of provider, program, school, and community predictors of the implementation quality of school-based prevention programs. Prevention Science, 11(2), 126–141. Scholar
  51. Perkins, D. F., Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Johnson, L. E., Chilenski, S. M., Mincemoyer, C. C., & Spoth, R. L. (2011). Team factors that predict to sustainability indicators for community-based prevention teams. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(3), 283–291. Scholar
  52. Quinby, R., Fagan, A., Hanson, K., Brooke-Weiss, B., Arthur, M., & Hawkins, J. (2008). Installing the communities that care prevention system: Implementation progress and fidelity in a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(3), 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rapkin, B. D., Weiss, E. S., Lounsbury, D. W., Thompson, H. S., Goodman, R. M., Schechter, C. B., … Padgett, D. K. (2012). Using the interactive systems framework to support a quality improvement approach to dissemination of evidence-based strategies to promote early detection of breast cancer: Planning a comprehensive dynamic trial. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 497–517. Scholar
  54. Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., Shin, C., Schainker, L. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Feinberg, M. (2009). Long-term protective factor outcomes of evidence-based interventions implemented by community teams through a community-university partnership. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(5), 513–530. Scholar
  55. Ringwalt, C., Hanley, S., Vincus, A. A., Ennett, S. T., Rohrbach, L. A., & Bowling, J. M. (2008). The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in the nation's high schools. Journal of Primary Prevention, 29(6), 479–488. Scholar
  56. Ringwalt, C., Vincus, A. A., Hanley, S., Ennett, S. T., Bowling, J. M., & Rohrbach, L. A. (2009). The prevalence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools in 2005. Prevention Science, 10(1), 33–40. Scholar
  57. Ringwalt, C. L., Ennett, S., Vincus, A., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., & Simons-Rudolph, A. (2002). The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools. Prevention Science, 3(4), 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roman, J. (2015). Solving the wrong pockets problem: How pay for success promotes investment in evidence-based best practices. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  59. Silvia, E. S., & Thorne, J. (1997). School-based drug prevention programs: A longitudinal study in selected school districts. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.Google Scholar
  60. Spoth, R., Clair, S., Greenberg, M., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2007). Toward dissemination of evidence-based family interventions: Maintenance of community-based partnership recruitment results and associated factors. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 137–146. Scholar
  61. Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community-university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spoth, R., Guyll, M., Lillehoj, C. J., Redmond, C., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Prosper study of evidence-based intervention implementation quality by community-university partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(8), 981–999. Scholar
  63. Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Clair, S., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., & Feinberg, M. (2011). Preventing substance misuse through community-university partnerships: randomized controlled trial outcomes 4½ years past baseline. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(4), 440–447. Scholar
  64. Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Clair, S., & Feinberg, M. (2007). Substance-use outcomes at 18 months past baseline: The PROSPER Community-University Partnership Trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 395–402. Scholar
  65. Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Feinberg, M., & Schainker, L. (2013). PROSPER community-university partnership delivery system effects on substance misuse through 6 1/2 years past baseline from a cluster randomized controlled intervention trial. Preventive Medicine, 56(3–4), 190–196. Scholar
  66. Tibbits, M. K., Bumbarger, B. K., Kyler, S. J., & Perkins, D. F. (2010). Sustaining evidence-based interventions under real-world conditions: Results from a large-scale diffusion project. Prevention Science, 11(3), 252–262. Scholar
  67. Tucker, J. S., Ellickson, P. L., Orlando, M., Martino, S. C., & Klein, D. J. (2005). Substance use trajectories from early adolescence to emerging adulthood: A comparison of smoking, binge drinking, and marijuana use. Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2011). Prevalence and implementation Fidelity of research-based prevention programs in public schools: Final report. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  69. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1985). Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and Minority Health: Volume I: The executive summary. Includes bibliographical references and appendices. (Document) MH10D9924. Washington, DC: Author. xii, 239 p. Retrieved from
  70. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Facing addiction in America. The surgeon general’s report on alcohol, drugs, and health. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  71. Wandersman, A., Chien, V. H., & Katz, J. (2012). Toward an evidence-based system for innovation support for implementing innovations with quality: Tools, training, technical assistance, and quality assurance/quality improvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 445–459. Scholar
  72. Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., … Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 171–181. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Chinman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joie Acosta
    • 2
  • Patricia Ebener
    • 3
  • Sarah Hunter
    • 3
  • Pamela Imm
    • 4
  • Abraham Wandersman
    • 5
  1. 1.RAND CorporationPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.RAND CorporationArlingtonUSA
  3. 3.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  4. 4.Private Practice, LexingtonUSA
  5. 5.Barnwell CollegeUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations