This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1049731509335561v1 19/5/592    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brekke, J. S. Articles by Duke, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Implementation Practice and Implementation Research

A Report From the Field

University of Southern California, brekke{at}usc.edu

Elizabeth Phillips

Portals

Laura Pancake

Portals

Anne O

Portals

Jenebah Lewis

Portals

Jessica Duke

Portals

The Interventions and Practice Research Infrastructure Program (IPRISP) funding mechanism was introduced by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to bridge the gap between the worlds of services research and the usual care practice in the community. The goal was to build infrastructure that would provide a platform for research to establish the evidence base for improving mental health care available in diverse communities. This is done by providing support for researchers and community mental health providers to establish working and sustainable partnerships to make evidence-based mental health services available and acceptable for people in need of mental health care. In this article, we (a) present the nature of one IPRISP and its attempt to foster science-to-service and service-to-science interchange; (b) discuss two models of implementation practice for human service agencies, the more common ‘‘external specialist purveyor model’’ and the ‘‘embedded generalist purveyor model’’ that is emerging from our IPRISP experience; and (c) we address our emerging practice approach to two issues that are critical in implementation practice and research: local adaptation of evidence-based interventions, and the use of client outcome data in usual care environments to inform clinical practice decisions.

Key Words: implementation • research • practice • human services

This version was published on September 1, 2009

Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 19, No. 5, 592-601 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1049731509335561


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?