Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 14967977

Put Prevention into Practice implementation model: translating practice into theory.

Abstract

Put Prevention into Practice (PPIP), a national initiative promoting evidence-based clinical preventive services, was atheoretical in its approach to change. In 1994, the Texas Department of Health began demonstration projects to implement PPIP in grantee primary care sites across the state. They funded implementation and evaluation projects that resulted in eight years of experience with the process. Gathering both qualitative and quantitative data, the Texas Department of Health and the University of Texas researchers found action research essential to learning how to successfully support clinical sites in the implementation of PPIP. The researchers also found the need for on-site consultative assistance and a participatory problem-solving approach in order to produce desired systems change. A complex adaptive systems' perspective gave theoretical justification for action research, the composition of the PPIP Implementation Model, and the importance of specific adaptation by clinics. Thus, the eight-year action research project found that a state health department desiring to implement and institutionalize quality health care should focus on: (1) context-specific consultation, (2) recognition of complexity and system-level constructs, and (3) the requirement for participatory change.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michele Murphy-Smith, Barbara Meyer, Jeffrey Hitt, Margaret A Taylor-Seehafer, Diane O Tyler. Put Prevention into Practice implementation model: translating practice into theory.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124784-200403000-00004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Differences, disparities, and biases: clarifying racial variations in health care use.

Studies documenting racial differences in health care use are common in the medical literature. However, observational studies of racial differences in health care use lack a framework for interpreting reports of variations in health care use, leading to various terms, ranging from "variations" to "bias," that suggest different causes, consequences, and, ultimately, remedies for such variations in treatment. We propose criteria to assess racial differences in health care use by using a clinical equity (equal treatment based on equal clinical need) framework. This framework differentiates between initial reports of racial differences and subsequent classifications of their findings as racial disparities or racial bias in health care use. Racial variations in health care use may be considered disparities after demonstrating that racial differences are not attributable to treatment eligibility, clinical contraindications, patient preferences, or confounding by other clinical factors and are associated with adverse consequences. Racial bias with adverse consequences in health care may be inferred if a racial variation in treatment that has been characterized as a disparity persists after accounting for health care system factors (for example, type of hospital at which the patient was treated). We apply this framework to published reports of racial differences in treatment to determine which studies provide evidence of differences, disparities, and bias. We discuss the use of such a framework in directing policy interventions for alleviating inappropriate racial variations in health care use.

Delivery of Health Care↗