↓ Skip to main content

What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
34 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0272-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Leeman, Larissa Calancie, Marieke A. Hartman, Cam T. Escoffery, Alison K. Herrmann, Lindsay E. Tague, Alexis A. Moore, Katherine M. Wilson, Michelle Schreiner, Carmen Samuel-Hodge

Abstract

Numerous agencies are providing training, technical assistance, and other support to build community-based practitioners' capacity to adopt and implement evidence-based prevention interventions. Yet, little is known about how best to design capacity-building interventions to optimize their effectiveness. Wandersman et al. (Am J Community Psychol.50:445-59, 2102) proposed the Evidence-Based System of Innovation Support (EBSIS) as a framework to guide research and thereby strengthen the evidence base for building practitioners' capacity. The purpose of this review was to contribute to further development of the EBSIS by systematically reviewing empirical studies of capacity-building interventions to identify (1) the range of strategies used, (2) variations in the way they were structured, and (3) evidence for their effectiveness at increasing practitioners' capacity to use evidence-based prevention interventions. PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for English-language articles reporting findings of empirical studies of capacity-building interventions that were published between January 2000 and January 2014 and were intended to increase use of evidence-based prevention interventions in non-clinical settings. To maximize review data, studies were not excluded a priori based on design or methodological quality. Using the EBSIS as a guide, two researchers independently extracted data from included studies. Vote counting and meta-summary methods were used to summarize findings. The review included 42 publications reporting findings from 29 studies. In addition to confirming the strategies and structures described in the EBSIS, the review identified two new strategies and two variations in structure. Capacity-building interventions were found to be effective at increasing practitioners' adoption (n = 10 of 12 studies) and implementation (n = 9 of 10 studies) of evidence-based interventions. Findings were mixed for interventions' effects on practitioners' capacity or intervention planning behaviors. Both the type and structure of capacity-building strategies may have influenced effectiveness. The review also identified contextual factors that may require variations in the ways capacity-building interventions are designed. Based on review findings, refinements are suggested to the EBSIS. The refined framework moves the field towards a more comprehensive and standardized approach to conceptualizing the types and structures of capacity-building strategies. This standardization will assist with synthesizing findings across studies and guide capacity-building practice and research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 269 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 51 19%
Student > Master 36 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 11%
Other 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 10%
Other 52 19%
Unknown 47 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 56 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 13%
Psychology 25 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 76 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,342,993
of 25,820,938 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#223
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,144
of 280,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,820,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.