Barriers and Facilitators to Adopting a Systematic, Proactive, Evidence-Informed Technical Assistance System.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1177/01632787241293756
Andrea E Lamont, Amber Watson, Brittany S Cook, Andrew Romero, Kellen Schalter, Abigail Nellis, Kristina Clark, Ariel Domlyn, Abraham Wandersman
{"title":"Barriers and Facilitators to Adopting a Systematic, Proactive, Evidence-Informed Technical Assistance System.","authors":"Andrea E Lamont, Amber Watson, Brittany S Cook, Andrew Romero, Kellen Schalter, Abigail Nellis, Kristina Clark, Ariel Domlyn, Abraham Wandersman","doi":"10.1177/01632787241293756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article describes (a) key elements of a high-quality technical assistance (TA) system; (b) the operationalization of a high-quality TA system (Getting To Outcomes-Technical Assistance; GTO-TA) being implemented in a training and TA center (TTAC) interested in transforming its support services to include an evidence-informed approach to TA; and (c) key lessons learned in successfully transitioning from \"TA-as-usual\" to an evidence-informed TA system. GTO-TA is one operationalization of a systematic, proactive, evidence-informed approach to TA. GTO-TA includes best practices and core elements for a comprehensive TA system; it aims to increase the readiness (reduce barriers and increase facilitators) of an organization to deliver an innovation (program, policy, practice, and process new to an organization) with quality. We describe the collaboration between the Wandersman Center and the Geographic Health Equity Alliance team to co-design and implement the GTO-TA system. Data from surveys, interviews, and consensus conversations led to important lessons learned, which are applicable to other TTACs seeking to develop a more proactive and systematic approach to TA. Lessons include: changing internal operations to facilitate TA providers making necessary changes in providing TA and understanding the relative advantage perceptions about a new TA system that influence adoption and must be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"353-368"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241293756","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article describes (a) key elements of a high-quality technical assistance (TA) system; (b) the operationalization of a high-quality TA system (Getting To Outcomes-Technical Assistance; GTO-TA) being implemented in a training and TA center (TTAC) interested in transforming its support services to include an evidence-informed approach to TA; and (c) key lessons learned in successfully transitioning from "TA-as-usual" to an evidence-informed TA system. GTO-TA is one operationalization of a systematic, proactive, evidence-informed approach to TA. GTO-TA includes best practices and core elements for a comprehensive TA system; it aims to increase the readiness (reduce barriers and increase facilitators) of an organization to deliver an innovation (program, policy, practice, and process new to an organization) with quality. We describe the collaboration between the Wandersman Center and the Geographic Health Equity Alliance team to co-design and implement the GTO-TA system. Data from surveys, interviews, and consensus conversations led to important lessons learned, which are applicable to other TTACs seeking to develop a more proactive and systematic approach to TA. Lessons include: changing internal operations to facilitate TA providers making necessary changes in providing TA and understanding the relative advantage perceptions about a new TA system that influence adoption and must be considered.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
采用系统、积极、循证技术援助系统的障碍和促进因素。
本文介绍了(a)高质量技术援助(TA)系统的关键要素;(b)一个培训与技术援助中心(TTAC)正在实施的高质量技术援助系统(获取成果-技术援助;GTO-TA)的运作情况,该中心有意将其支持服务转变为包括有实证依据的技术援助方法;以及(c)从 "照常提供技术援助 "成功过渡到有实证依据的技术援助系统的主要经验教训。GTO-TA 是对技术援助采取系统、积极、有实证依据的方法的一种操作方式。GTO-TA 包括全面技术援助系统的最佳实践和核心要素;其目的是提高一个组织的准备程度(减少障碍和增加促进因素),以便高质量地提供创新(对一个组织来说是新的计划、政策、实践、流程)。我们介绍了漫游者中心与地理健康公平联盟团队合作共同设计和实施 GTO-TA 系统的情况。从调查、访谈和共识对话中获得的数据总结出了重要的经验教训,这些经验教训适用于其他寻求制定更积极、更系统的 TA 方法的 TTAC。这些经验教训包括:改变内部运作,以促进技术援助提供者在提供技术援助方面做出必要的改变;了解对新技术援助系统的相对优势看法,这些看法会影响系统的采用,必须予以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Mothers With a Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design Study. Single-Case Study of the Feasibility of Parent Training and Change in Parenting in Comparison to Baseline, in Adolescents With a Major Depressive Disorder. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Analysis of Count and Rate Data in Single-case Eperimental Designs: A Step-by-step Tutorial. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1