Diversity in practitioners' perspectives on the implementation of the evidence‐based Triple P—Positive Parenting Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evidence‐based programs (EBPs) have the potential to improve the well‐being of families and children, but do not necessarily produce the expected outcomes when implemented in real‐world settings. It thus appears essential to consider the factors that can impact the implementation process, especially those related to the practitioners who deliver these programs. This study aimed to identify and describe common patterns in practitioners' experience of the implementation of an EBP. To this end, six focus groups were conducted with 38 practitioners from the health, social and education sectors, 1 year after they had received training in the evidence‐based Triple P—Positive Parenting Program. An in‐depth analysis of the content of these interviews revealed a diversity in the practitioners' experience of the implementation of Triple P. Three distinct types of discourse regarding the implementation process, labelled ‘conviction’, ‘mastering’ and ‘estrangement’ discourse, were identified. Motivational theories were used to understand the interaction between the factors that appeared to be key elements differentiating the discourses in this typology (i.e., practitioners' attitudes, perceived organisational support, self‐efficacy and level of program use). This study highlights the dynamic nature of the implementation process, and shows that a negative initial position towards a new EBP can change over time, given the appropriate organisational conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".