Implementation Research and Practice (Jun 2023)

Trajectory of external implementation support activities across two states in the United States: A descriptive study

  • William A. Aldridge,
  • Rebecca H. Roppolo,
  • Shannon D. Chaplo,
  • Ariel B. Everett,
  • Sherra N. Lawrence,
  • Christina I. DiSalvo,
  • Devon R. Minch,
  • Jessica J. Reed,
  • Renée I. Boothroyd

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231154285
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4

Abstract

Read online

Background Reporting on strategies to advance implementation outcomes is imperative. The current study reports descriptive information about external implementation support (EIS) provided over 5 years to 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family supports. Regional support teams operating through the Implementation Capacity for Triple P (ICTP) projects employed core practice components (CPCs) for EIS as proposed by Aldridge et al. and further operationalized by members of The Impact Center at FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill. Method Practice activities associated with CPCs were developed and iteratively refined across the study period. ICTP regional support teams systematically tracked their use of CPCs and related activities following each substantive support interaction. Tracking included the duration of time a CPC was employed and the use of specific practice activities associated with that CPC. Data were aggregated by month of the relationship to account for differential start dates across regions. Results From November 2016 through December 2021, ICTP support teams tracked 749 support interactions with Triple P regions in North Carolina and South Carolina. Monthly support decreased year over year, though dose varied considerably. Patterns of CPC use indicated a high dose of “foundational” and “co-design” CPCs early, followed by a blended and more diverse use thereafter, with some notable trends. Practice activities considered essential to influencing intended practice outcomes were characterized by higher rates of use. Like CPCs, practice activities were used dynamically across the study period. Conclusions This descriptive study offers a case study for how EIS might be operationalized, tracked, and employed. Findings suggest several interpretations that might refine our understanding and use of EIS. Although the nature of this practical report precludes generalizability of findings, directions for future research and practice are discussed.