A 5-year examination of CAPABLE implementation using RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Examining the experience of organizations implementing evidence-based programs can help future programs address barriers to effective implementation, sustainment, and scaling. CAPABLE is an evidence-based 4-to-6-month program that improves daily function of older adults and modifies their home environments in modest ways to support their goal attainment. Through a guided process, utilizing an occupational therapist, nurse, and handy worker, the older adult sets goals and a personal action plan. In this study, we examined factors that advanced or impeded implementation and sustainability of CAPABLE. The researchers are embedded in the CAPABLE National Center and Johns Hopkins and provide ongoing technical support in implementation and dissemination of CAPABLE throughout the U.S., Canada, and other countries. Methods: . We identified key components to implement CAPABLE and used self-reported data from the lead program administrator at each organization who replied to the annual survey. These key informants responded to the level of ease or difficulty of these key components required for implementation. They responded each year that their organizations provided CAPABLE. CAPABLE licensure records indicated when the organization began/terminated their service. Notes from monthly office hours calls provided additional contextual information. We performed qualitative thematic and descriptive analysis on the notes. We also reviewed published studies on CAPABLE's outcomes. The unit of analysis was the organization. Results: The following factors were consistently reported by these administrators as supporting ease of implementation: getting leadership support, accessing technical assistance, and maintaining fidelity to the program. Conversely, common challenges reported included difficulty with recruitment, hiring/finding the required personnel, and sustainability funding. Internal factors supporting readiness and adoption were perceived value of the program and program manager knowledge and commitment. External factors reported that supported adoption was initial funding to start a pilot, and alignment with "aging in community" strategic goals. Implication: This examination revealed positive and impeding forces for implementation and sustainment and identified where additional support was needed. Findings are guiding the development of this additional technical support by the CAPABLE National Center. In addition, efforts are underway to improve funding and policy to support CAPABLE to improve sustainment, scaling, and dissemination. This study also provides a use case for employing the RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks together to track ongoing implementation. This helps address a gap in the literature concerning practical ways to monitor, evaluate, and report on ongoing implementation of evidence-based programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,055 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».