Oregon Social Learning Center

An essential element for increasing student mathematics achievement is providing teachers with professional development (PD) aimed at the design and delivery of high-quality mathematics instruction. To date, however, there is a lack of consistent data on the efficacy of PD on student outcomes; moreover, there is a need to explore PD characteristics as moderators of student outcomes. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to synthesize the effects of teacher PD on mathematics outcomes for students in PreK through 12th grade. Additionally, this study explored whether specific characteristics (i.e., grade level, format, PD focus, PD days, and inclusion of students with or at risk of disabilities) served as potential moderators of the effect of PD programs. The 20 studies included in the review investigated PD intended for in-service teachers who work with a full range of learners, including students with or at risk of disabilities. The results showed that there was a positive average effect of PD on student mathematics outcomes (g = 0.34, 95% PI = [−0.47, 1.15]), with wide heterogeneity of most effects ranging from −0.20 to 5.83. In addition, the five moderators examined in this meta-analysis were not significantly correlated with the relation between PD efficacy and student mathematics outcomes. Recommendations for improving the features of PD programs as well as exploring mechanisms of change hypothesized to improve student mathematics outcomes are discussed.

This article discusses psychosocial interventions in the contexts they are meant to be delivered. Prevention and intervention science often follow the linear pathway of preclinical or pre-intervention research-efficacy trials, effectiveness trials, and implementation studies-with the assessment of translation into public and population health impact occurring at the end. This linear translational pathway follows stages developed for ascertaining safe, efficacious, and effective dosages for biological compounds. This approach has created limitations in the need to rapidly deploy complex, multi-component, multilevel approaches to change behavior and improve health into widespread practice for diverse clinical and public health settings. While it is important to use efficacy trials when safety is yet to be established, when the risks are identified to be low, as is often the case for psychosocial interventions, we can go faster to achieve equitable population health impact. The authors recommend that clinical trialists engaged in intervention development incorporate two considerations in the next generation of prevention and intervention research. First, consider moving right to effectiveness or pragmatic trials, as the most valid test of an intervention is the est of that intervention in the context(s) in which it is intended. Second, when designing effectiveness studies, consider investigating questions related to both effectiveness (i.e., does the intervention improve clinical outcomes) and implementation (i.e., what supports are needed to deploy the intervention routinely in that context) to accelerate impact. As a matter of both ethics and equity, there is a need to expedite the research-to-practice pipeline at a pace faster than is made available through current approaches. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Effective delivery of evidence-based practices (EBPs) depends on strong supervision and leadership. This case study analysis examined how supervisors contended with barriers and facilitators of implementation of R3, a supervisor-focused strategy to improve caseworker interactions with families in the child welfare system. A stratified random sample of supervisors, those with higher scores on the Implementation Leadership Scale (n = 10) versus those with lower scores (n = 10), who participated in multiple interviews, allowed for analysis over the course of implementation. Findings demonstrate the importance of strong supervisor leadership, high quality supervision, and coaching engagement to overcoming implementation barriers. Strong supervisor leadership may facilitate an efficient transition of support from external coaches to supervision practices.

Several European countries have offered refuge to families forced to flee their homes because of violence, war, and other disasters. Stressful factors associated with displacement and relocation place families at risk for disrupted effective child-rearing practices and associated growth in problems for parents and their children. The need to promote healthy adjustment and prevent and ameliorate problems for refugee families is vital. The present study describes SPARE (Strengthening Parenting Among Refugees in Europe), a trauma-informed adaptation of the evidence-based parenting program Generation Parent Management Training Oregon Model (GenerationPMTO). SPARE integrates core parenting components in GenerationPMTO with skills designed to address families’ trauma experiences. A collaborative team of GenerationPMTO experts in Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands have adapted this parent group intervention for Arabic-speaking (Middle Eastern) refugee families who have relocated in Europe. This report describes results from an acceptability and feasibility study based on the first two SPARE groups completed in Iceland and Norway. Overall, attendance was good, parents reported satisfaction with their experiences in the groups and said that the material addressed important family needs. Parents also indicated the need for more time to deepen their understanding, provide greater focus on age-specific needs, and in Norway in particular, more information about the child welfare system.

Opioid use continues to represent a significant public health problem in the United States, as well as globally. The opioid epidemic has motivated advances in the effective treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), with a particular focus on medications for OUD (MOUD), including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Although these medications are remarkably effective, MOUD expansion initiatives alone have not been sufficient to combat the opioid epidemic. Further, critical questions remain regarding the effectiveness of these medications for individuals who initiate opioid use under age 16. Key strategies to combat the opioid epidemic, including MOUD and naloxone distribution, target intervention for individuals who have already developed an OUD. Like every other health problem, shifting attention earlier in the etiological process can lend itself to a more cost-effective approach by preventing the onset of behaviors that contribute to subsequent increases in morbidity and mortality. Therefore, we argue that targeted interventions for adolescents with substance use problems, including for non-opioid drugs (i.e., cannabis, alcohol), is critical to prevent the onset of OUD and turn the tide of the opioid overdose epidemic. In line with this call to action to move toward earlier intervention as a public health strategy, we propose several concrete recommendations. These include use of universal screening and prevention strategies for teens, an enhanced focus on addressing mental health (i.e., depression, trauma-related anxiety) and ecological (i.e., low caregiver monitoring, affiliating with substance using peers) precursors of substance use initiation in adolescents, a significant restructuring of resource allocation to more effectively and equitably address youth substance use and mental health problems, and continuous efforts dedicated to the de-stigmatization of the disease of substance use disorders.

BackgroundSustainment is a desirable outcome of implementation, but its precise definition remains unclear, contributing to the difficulty of identifying a generalized rate of sustainment. Several studies and reviews on the topic differ on both definition and levels of analysis. Furthermore, methodological limitations might have influenced the results, including the unknown quality with which some interventions were delivered. The Universal Stages of Implementation Completion (UniSIC) is a standardized measurement tool that tracks the implementation process and milestone completion across a wide range of real-world implementations—this provides a unique opportunity to identify a generalized rate of sustainment.MethodsUniSIC data was captured from the SIC website on 27 September 2020 and included data from all sites (n = 1778) that had been tracked to date. Data were restricted to sites that achieved competency in program delivery, and thus had a newly adopted program worthy of sustainment. Dates and indicator variables of implementation activities were combined to form two alternate definitions of sustainment: sustained (start-up) was achieved if sites continued to deliver services 2 years past their program start-up date; sustained (competent) was achieved if sites continued to deliver services 2 years past their competence and/or certification date. Of sites eligible for inclusion based on these definitions (N = 208), descriptive analyses were conducted to determine a rate of sustainment for all programs that successfully started a program. These definitions were also applied to a combined sample for a general rate of sustainment among all sites. Rates of competency among both a sample of sites that started up and a combined sample were also identified.ResultsThe rate of competence was 58.5% and the rate of sustained (start-up) was 37.1%, while the rate of sustained (competent) was 25.1%. The rates of competence and sustainment among the combined samples were far lower: 15.6% for competence, 6.8% for sustained (start-up), and 4.4% for sustained (competent).ConclusionsThese identified rates of sustainment are accurate initial estimates of sustainment of community-based practices, or in general. Future research on rates of sustainment should carefully define measures of sustainment and be transparent about the real-world conditions on which analyses are centered.

The 17-year time span between discovery and application of evidence in practice has become a unifying challenge for implementation science and translational science more broadly. Further, global pandemics and social crises demand timely implementation of rapidly accruing evidence to reduce morbidity and mortality. Yet speed remains an understudied metric in implementation science. Prevailing evaluations of implementation lack a temporal aspect, and current approaches have not yielded rapid implementation. In this paper, we address speed as an important conceptual and methodological gap in implementation science. We aim to untangle the complexities of studying implementation speed, offer a framework to assess speed of translation (FAST), and provide guidance to measure speed in evaluating implementation. To facilitate specification and reporting on metrics of speed, we encourage consideration of stakeholder perspectives (e.g., comparison of varying priorities), referents (e.g., speed in attaining outcomes, transitioning between implementation phases), and observation windows (e.g., time from intervention development to first patient treated) in its measurement. The FAST framework identifies factors that may influence speed of implementation and potential effects of implementation speed. We propose a research agenda to advance understanding of the pace of implementation, including identifying accelerators and inhibitors to speed.

BackgroundUnderstanding the costs and economic benefits of implementation has been identified by policymakers and researchers as critical to increase the uptake and sustainment of evidence-based practices, but this topic remains relatively understudied. Conducting team science with health economists has been proposed as a solution to increase economic evaluation in implementation science; however, these recommendations ignore the differences in goals and perspectives in these two fields. Our recent qualitative research identified that implementation researchers predominantly approach health economists to examine costs, whereas the majority of health economists expressed limited interest in conducting economic evaluations and a desire to be more integrated within implementation science initiatives. These interviews pointed to challenges in establishing fruitful partnerships when health economists are relegated to the “Third Aim” (i.e., lowest-priority research objective) in implementation science projects by their research partners.DiscussionIn this debate paper, we argue that implementation researchers and health economists need to focus on team science research principles to expand capacity to address pressing research questions that cut across the two fields. Specifically, we use the four-phase model of transdisciplinary research to outline the goals and processes needed to build capacity in this area (Hall et al., Transl Behav Med 2:415–30, 2012). The first phase focuses on the development of transdisciplinary research teams, including identifying appropriate partners (e.g., considering policy or public health researchers in addition to health economists) and building trust. The conceptual phase focuses on strategies to consider when developing joint research questions and methodology across fields. In the implementation phase, we outline the effective processes for conducting research projects, such as team learning. Finally, in the translation phase, we highlight how a transdisciplinary approach between health economists and implementation researchers can impact real-world practice and policy.SummaryThe importance of investigating the economic impact of evidence-based practice implementation is widely recognized, but efforts have been limited due to the challenges in conducting team science across disciplines. Training in team science can help advance transdisciplinary efforts, which has the potential to increase the rigor and impact of economic evaluations in implementation science while expanding the roles taken by health economists.

BackgroundAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events occurring before age 18, such as maltreatment or exposure to violence. ACE screening is increasingly recommended to prevent and address physical and mental health conditions associated with ACEs. To promote ACE screening uptake, the state of California issued the “ACEs Aware” policy that provides Medicaid reimbursement for ACE screening annually for child primary care visits. However, policy directives alone often do not translate into effective screening efforts and greater access to care. Few rigorous studies have developed and tested implementation strategies for ACE pediatric screening policies. This study will fill this gap by testing a multifaceted implementation strategy in partnership with a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) system serving low-income families in Southern California to support the ACE Aware policy.MethodsWe will use Implementation Mapping, with study process and consideration of determinants and mechanisms guided by the EPIS framework, to co-create and refine an implementation strategy. The proposed strategy is comprised of online training videos, a customized algorithm and use of technology to improve workflow efficiency, implementation training to internal FQHC personnel, clinic support and coaching, and written implementation protocols. A hybrid type 2, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design with five primary care clinics will test whether a multifaceted implementation strategy improves (a) fidelity to the ACE screening protocol, (b) reach defined as the proportion of eligible children screened for ACEs, and (c) the impact of the ACE policy on child-level mental health referrals and symptom outcomes. The study will use mixed methods with data to include electronic health records, surveys, and interviews with clinic personnel and caregivers.DiscussionThis study is designed to increase the capacity of FQHCs’ inner context to successfully implement an outer context-initiated ACE policy designed to benefit pediatric patients. It capitalizes on a rare opportunity to use a co-creation approach to develop, adapt, refine, and pilot test an implementation strategy to maximize the impact of a new state-wide policy intended to improve ACE assessment and subsequent care to improve child health, particularly those from underserved communities.Trial registrationTrial # NCT04916587 registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 4, 2021.