Letting Go: Conceptualizing Intervention De‐implementation in Public Health and Social Service Settings.

Abstract: The discontinuation of interventions that should be stopped, or de‐implementation, has emerged as a novel line of inquiry within dissemination and implementation science. As this area grows in human services research, like public health and social work, theory is needed to help guide scien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:American Journal of Community Psychology Vol. 62; no. 1/2; pp. 189 - 203
Autores principales: McKay, Virginia R., Proctor, Enola K., Morshed, Alexandra B., Brownson, Ross C., Prusaczyk, Beth
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Sep2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=131861847&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 131861847
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00910562
        CMP
      jtl: American Journal of Community Psychology
      issn: 00910562
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2018
      vid: 62
      iid: 1/2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        131861847
        10.1002/ajcp.12258
      ppf: 189
      ppct: 14
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 128KB
      tig:
        atl: Letting Go: Conceptualizing Intervention De‐implementation in Public Health and Social Service Settings.
      aug:
        au:
          McKay, Virginia R.
          Proctor, Enola K.
          Morshed, Alexandra B.
          Brownson, Ross C.
          Prusaczyk, Beth
        affil:
          Center for Public Health Systems Science, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
          Institute of Clinical and Translational Science, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
          Center for Mental Health Services Research, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
          Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
          Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
          Department of Surgery (Division of Public Health Sciences) and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
          Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
          Center for Clinical Quality and Implementation Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
      su:
        Intervention (Social services)
        Implementation (Social action programs)
        Public health
        Information dissemination
        Narratives
      sug:
        subj:
          Intervention (Social services)
          Implementation (Social action programs)
          Public health
          Information dissemination
          Health and Welfare Funds
          Narratives
      keyword:
        De‐implementation
        Implementation science
        Social service
        Theory
        De‐implementation
        Implementation science
        Social service
        Theory
      ab: Abstract: The discontinuation of interventions that should be stopped, or de‐implementation, has emerged as a novel line of inquiry within dissemination and implementation science. As this area grows in human services research, like public health and social work, theory is needed to help guide scientific endeavors. Given the infancy of de‐implementation, this conceptual narrative provides a definition and criteria for determining if an intervention should be de‐implemented. We identify three criteria for identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation: (a) interventions that are not effective or harmful, (b) interventions that are not the most effective or efficient to provide, and (c) interventions that are no longer necessary. Detailed, well‐documented examples illustrate each of the criteria. We describe de‐implementation frameworks, but also demonstrate how other existing implementation frameworks might be applied to de‐implementation research as a supplement. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of de‐implementation in the context of other stages of implementation, like sustainability and adoption; next steps for de‐implementation research, especially identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation in a systematic manner; and highlight special ethical considerations to advance the field of de‐implementation research.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N