Developing a Set of Standardized Core Principles and Methods Across Multiple Training and Technical Assistance Centers.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1177/01632787241291052
Lynn R Holdheide, David D Osher, Victoria L Cirks, Elizabeth Chagnon
{"title":"Developing a Set of Standardized Core Principles and Methods Across Multiple Training and Technical Assistance Centers.","authors":"Lynn R Holdheide, David D Osher, Victoria L Cirks, Elizabeth Chagnon","doi":"10.1177/01632787241291052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite a growing body of research demonstrating the value of using evidence-based programs and practices (EBPPs) to address health and education issues, the gap between research evidence and practice in education and human services continues to be a vexing problem. Technical assistance (TA) is widely accepted as a key strategy to support evidence-based programs and practices (EBPP) uptake and implementation. However, little is known about how TA practices are used in TA delivery. Moreover, little attention has been paid to building the capacity of TA providers and assessing the fidelity of the implementation of TA practices. The case example presented in this article describes one organization's efforts to develop common language and definitions of TA services, core principles, and methods, and to standardize the delivery of TA by enhancing the capacity and retention of TA providers. We conclude with recommendations about how like organizations can employ similar efforts to improve the quality and consistency of TA delivery, thereby establishing a foundation for building a strong evidence base.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","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/10.1177/01632787241291052","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite a growing body of research demonstrating the value of using evidence-based programs and practices (EBPPs) to address health and education issues, the gap between research evidence and practice in education and human services continues to be a vexing problem. Technical assistance (TA) is widely accepted as a key strategy to support evidence-based programs and practices (EBPP) uptake and implementation. However, little is known about how TA practices are used in TA delivery. Moreover, little attention has been paid to building the capacity of TA providers and assessing the fidelity of the implementation of TA practices. The case example presented in this article describes one organization's efforts to develop common language and definitions of TA services, core principles, and methods, and to standardize the delivery of TA by enhancing the capacity and retention of TA providers. We conclude with recommendations about how like organizations can employ similar efforts to improve the quality and consistency of TA delivery, thereby establishing a foundation for building a strong evidence base.

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
为多个培训和技术援助中心制定一套标准化的核心原则和方法。
尽管越来越多的研究表明,使用循证计划和实践(EBPPs)来解决健康和教育问题很有价值,但教育和人类服务领域的研究证据与实践之间的差距仍然是一个令人头疼的问题。技术援助(TA)被广泛认为是支持循证项目和实践(EBPP)吸收和实施的关键策略。然而,人们对技术援助提供过程中如何使用技术援助实践知之甚少。此外,人们也很少关注技术援助提供者的能力建设以及对技术援助实践实施的忠实性进行评估。本文介绍的案例描述了一个组织如何努力为技术援助服务、核心原则和方法制定共同的语言和定义,并通过提高技术援助提供者的能力和留住他们来规范技术援助的提供。最后,我们就类似组织如何通过类似努力来提高技术援助服务的质量和一致性提出了建议,从而为建立强大的实证基础奠定基础。
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
Commentary: Strengthening System Readiness for Health Interventions: Lessons for Implementing Interventions and Implementation Support in Low-And Middle-Income Countries. Evidence-Based Implementation Support: Considering Motivation and Capacity Within the Ecosystem of Training and Technical Assistance. Who's at the Table? A Scoping Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Medical Education Program Evaluation. Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices. Cross-national Psychometric Evaluation of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Medical Student Version.
×
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