Adapted and novel interventions are more effective than adopted interventions: a meta-analytic replication of controlled social intervention research across prevention level and setting

Author:

Olsson Tina1ORCID,Schwarz Ulrica von Thiele2,Hasson Henna3,Vira Emily G4,Sundell Knut5

Affiliation:

1. University of Gothenburg: Goteborgs Universitet

2. Mälardalens Högskola: Malardalens universitet

3. Karolinska Institute: Karolinska Institutet

4. Norwegian Institute of Public Health

5. University of Gävle, Department of Social Work and Criminology

Abstract

Abstract Background. Several approaches to the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are currently in use. EBIs may be adapted or adopted from previous settings or novel interventions may be developed to achieve public health goals. Within the intervention and implementation literature, a major unsolved dilemma relates to the management of adaptation versus fidelity when EBIs are transferred between settings. An initial attempt to empirically understand this dilemma was made in 2015 which explored meta-analytically the origins of interventions and compared their effect sizes. It was found that adapted interventions produced the highest effect sizes followed by novel and adopted interventions. The current study attempts to replicate these findings using a larger data set. Methods. We used meta-analytic techniques to compare effect sizes across a population of Swedish efficacy and effectiveness studies. Interventions investigated were categorized into adapted, adopted, and novel interventions. Nine subcategories were explored. In addition, we explored differences in effect sizes between settings as well as the impact of study characteristics on effect size. Results. Of the 523 studies included, 22% described adapted interventions, 33% adopted interventions, and 45% novel interventions. The largest effect size was found for adapted interventions followed by novel and adopted interventions. Standard mean effects were significantly different from zero across categories. Study characteristics did not have a large impact on effect size, but interventions provided in the mental health setting showed the highest standard mean difference, followed by somatic healthcare and social services. Conclusions. The results reported here are in line with a growing body of evidence suggesting that there is a need to take the fit between the EBI and the context into account when implementing interventions.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference68 articles.

1. Sundell K, Olsson TM. Social Intervention Research. Oxford Bibliographies. 2017.

2. Steps in intervention research: designing and developing social programs;Fraser MW;Res Social Work Pract,2010

3. Fraser MW, Richman JM, Galinsky MJ, Day SH. Intervention Research: Developing Social Programs. Tripodi T, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

4. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study;Duncan E;BMJ OPen,2020

5. Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination;Flay BR;Prev Sci,2005

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3