↓ Skip to main content

Technical Assistance to Enhance Prevention Capacity: a Research Synthesis of the Evidence Base

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Technical Assistance to Enhance Prevention Capacity: a Research Synthesis of the Evidence Base
Published in
Prevention Science, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11121-016-0636-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Katz, Abraham Wandersman

Abstract

Despite the availability of many evidence-based prevention interventions (EBIs), gaps exist in bringing these programs into widespread practice. Technical assistance (TA) is a strategy for enhancing the readiness of practitioners to implement EBIs. Although many millions of dollars are spent on TA each year, there is little consensus about what the essential features of TA are and how to provide TA with quality. A broad-based research synthesis methodology was used for analyzing the current evidence base for TA using three frames: (1) applying the Getting To Outcomes (GTO) model for categorizing evidence on TA that specifies tasks for planning, implementing, and evaluating TA; (2) understanding the relevance of a successful relationship between the TA provider and TA recipient; and (3) considering the extent to which TA fits the life cycle needs of the preventive intervention. Results indicated that an explicit model or organizing framework is rarely used to plan, implement, and/or evaluate TA; specific TA tasks performed vary widely across studies; TA is rarely delivered to recipients who are seeking to sustain innovations subsequent to adoption and implementation; however, there is systematic attention to relationships and relationship-building. Overall, this synthesis indicates that the extent to which TA is being delivered systematically is limited. We suggest that funders and other stakeholders develop and implement standards for TA quality in order to ensure that many of these limitations are addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 14%
Other 7 8%
Student > Master 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 21 23%
Psychology 16 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,247,869
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#393
of 1,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,145
of 400,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 400,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.