药物滥用和心理健康服务管理局技术转让中心网络的持续质量改进:过程评估。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1177/01632787241234882
Jon Agley, Ruth Gassman, Kaitlyn Reho, Jeffrey Roberts, Susan K R Heil, Graciela Castillo, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo
{"title":"药物滥用和心理健康服务管理局技术转让中心网络的持续质量改进:过程评估。","authors":"Jon Agley, Ruth Gassman, Kaitlyn Reho, Jeffrey Roberts, Susan K R Heil, Graciela Castillo, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo","doi":"10.1177/01632787241234882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In healthcare and related fields, there is often a gap between research and practice. Scholars have developed frameworks to support dissemination and implementation of best practices, such as the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, which shows how scientific innovations are conveyed to practitioners through tools, training, and technical assistance (TA). Underpinning those aspects of the model are evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI). However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that the approaches to and outcomes from CQI in healthcare vary considerably, and that more evaluative work is needed. Therefore, this paper describes an assessment of CQI processes within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network, a large TA/TTC system in the United States comprised of 39 distinct centers. We conducted key informant interviews (<i>n</i> = 71 representing 28 centers in the Network) and three surveys (100% center response rates) focused on CQI, time/effort allocation, and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. We used data from each of these study components to provide a robust picture of CQI within a TA/TTC system, identifying Network-specific concepts, concerns about conflation of the GPRA data with CQI, and principles that might be studied more generally.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":"47 2","pages":"154-166"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157976/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous Quality Improvement in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Technology Transfer Center Network: A Process Evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Jon Agley, Ruth Gassman, Kaitlyn Reho, Jeffrey Roberts, Susan K R Heil, Graciela Castillo, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787241234882\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In healthcare and related fields, there is often a gap between research and practice. Scholars have developed frameworks to support dissemination and implementation of best practices, such as the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, which shows how scientific innovations are conveyed to practitioners through tools, training, and technical assistance (TA). Underpinning those aspects of the model are evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI). However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that the approaches to and outcomes from CQI in healthcare vary considerably, and that more evaluative work is needed. Therefore, this paper describes an assessment of CQI processes within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network, a large TA/TTC system in the United States comprised of 39 distinct centers. We conducted key informant interviews (<i>n</i> = 71 representing 28 centers in the Network) and three surveys (100% center response rates) focused on CQI, time/effort allocation, and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. We used data from each of these study components to provide a robust picture of CQI within a TA/TTC system, identifying Network-specific concepts, concerns about conflation of the GPRA data with CQI, and principles that might be studied more generally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"47 2\",\"pages\":\"154-166\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157976/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241234882\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241234882","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

摘要

在医疗保健及相关领域,研究与实践之间往往存在差距。学者们开发了一些框架来支持最佳实践的传播和实施,例如 "传播与实施互动系统框架",该框架展示了如何通过工具、培训和技术援助(TA)将科学创新传达给实践者。该模式的基础是评估和持续质量改进(CQI)。然而,最近的一项荟萃分析表明,医疗保健领域的 CQI 方法和成果差异很大,需要开展更多的评估工作。因此,本文介绍了对美国药物滥用和心理健康服务管理局(SAMHSA)技术转让中心(TTC)网络内的 CQI 流程进行的评估,该网络是美国的一个大型技术转让/TTC 系统,由 39 个不同的中心组成。我们对关键信息提供者进行了访谈(n = 71,代表该网络中的 28 个中心),并进行了三项调查(中心回复率 100%),重点关注 CQI、时间/精力分配以及《政府绩效与结果法案》(GPRA)措施。我们利用这些研究组成部分中的每一个部分的数据,提供了 TA/TTC 系统内 CQI 的有力图景,确定了网络特有的概念、GPRA 数据与 CQI 混淆的问题,以及可能进行更广泛研究的原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Continuous Quality Improvement in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Technology Transfer Center Network: A Process Evaluation.

In healthcare and related fields, there is often a gap between research and practice. Scholars have developed frameworks to support dissemination and implementation of best practices, such as the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, which shows how scientific innovations are conveyed to practitioners through tools, training, and technical assistance (TA). Underpinning those aspects of the model are evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI). However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that the approaches to and outcomes from CQI in healthcare vary considerably, and that more evaluative work is needed. Therefore, this paper describes an assessment of CQI processes within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Technology Transfer Center (TTC) Network, a large TA/TTC system in the United States comprised of 39 distinct centers. We conducted key informant interviews (n = 71 representing 28 centers in the Network) and three surveys (100% center response rates) focused on CQI, time/effort allocation, and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. We used data from each of these study components to provide a robust picture of CQI within a TA/TTC system, identifying Network-specific concepts, concerns about conflation of the GPRA data with CQI, and principles that might be studied more generally.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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