Implementation Intervention for Personalized Normative Feedback Intervention for College Drinking

1. Development and Evaluation of
an Implementation Intervention
for Alcohol Related Personalized
Normative Feedback on U.S.
College Campuses
Kevin Cummins
Mock R21 Grant Proposal
FPM 291
June, 2017
1
V2

2. higher functioning
1,825
599,000
696,000
25%
PC: Sorryimissedtheparty.com
Deaths
Injuries
Assaults
Academic impact
NIAAA, 2017
Associated with
college drinking

3. 3

4. 50%
66% of evidence based programs
include norms clarification
utilize empirically supported
intervention programs
4
Nelson et al., 2010

5. Personalized Normative Feedback
5
=?
College

6. Personalized Normative Feedback (PNF)
Low Cost High Effectiveness
Leeman et al., 2015

7. Proposed R21 Aims
Aim 1. Identify key determinants and strategies for PNF
implementation at U.S. college campuses.
Aim 2. Evaluate implementation strategies to increase
acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, and
sustainability of PNF.
7

8. Process
Planning
Engaging
Executing
Reflecting and evaluating
Inner setting
Structural characteristics
Networks and
communication
Culture: Relative priority
Implementation climate
Outer setting
Patient needs and
resources
External policies and
incentives
Intervention
Characteristics
Intervention source
Relative advantage
Complexity
Evidence strength & quality
Adaptivity
Design quality and packaging
Characteristics of the
Individual
Knowledge and belief about
the intervention
Individuals Identification with
the organization
Other personal attributes
Consolidated Framework
for the Advancement of
Implementation Research

9. Proposed R21 Aims
Aim 1. Identify key determinants and strategies for PNF
implementation at U.S. college campuses.
Aim 2. Evaluate implementation strategies to increase
acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, and
sustainability of PNF.
9
A Priori Strategies CFIR Construct
 Develop Formal Implementation Blueprint Planning & rel. priority
 Develop Educational Materials Evidence strength
rel. advantage
 Distribute Educational Materials Evidence strength &
rel. advantage

10. Aim 1
Mixed Methods
QUAL -> QUAN
Phase 1 Phase 2
Aim 2
Among Sites
Experiment
Barriers
Facilitators
Strategies
Year 1
Year 2
10

11. 11
Aim 1
Mixed Methods
QUAL -> QUAN
Phase 1 Phase 2
Aim 2
Among Sites
Experiment
Barriers
Facilitators
Strategies
Year 1
Year 2

12. Phase I
Qualitative Component
Heterogeneity Sampling
E(n)=10 colleges; to thematic
saturation
In-depth semi-structured interviews with key
informants to identify determinants and
strategies.
Quantitative Component
Randomized stratified
recruitment
nrecruited = 120 colleges
Pragmatic measures*
Online 30 minute survey of directors
and 25 minute survey for other key
actors.
12
* Glasgow & Riley, 2013

13. Feasibility Study
• 16 colleges randomly selected
• Stratified by sponsor, size
• Contacted by mail, email, and phone
Thresholds
• 14 (88%) responsive
• 12 (75%) signed letters of participation interest
13

14. Tentative Mediator Measures
14
CFIR Domain Construct
Measurement
Level Instrument
Intervention
characteristics
Evidentiary
strength
Admin staff T. B. Developed*
Relative
advantage
Admin staff T. B. Developed*
Inner setting Relative priority Admin staff T. B. Developed*
Process Planning Lead Admin T. B. Developed*
*No GEM | No CFIR citation | SIRC

15. 15
Aim 1
Mixed Methods
QUAL -> QUAN
Phase 1 Phase 2
Aim 2
Among Sites
Experiment
Barriers
Facilitators
Strategies
Year 1
Year 2

16. College Drinking Intervention
Program Builder
Components
1. Intervention
blueprint guide
2. Evidence
challenge
16
Planning and
Relative Priority
Evidence strength
Relative advantage
CFIR Constructs

17. Phase II: Experiment
Sample
Treatment
Allocation
Replicates
Measurement
17
84 US Colleges
1. Control
2. Online college drinking intervention program
builder (CDIB)
3. Personal blueprint building support & static
educational materials
Randomized Block
Blocked by current NPF use, college size
28 colleges/ treatment
Of 19
Pre-post
-Phase 1 Constructs
-Outcome Measures

18. Potential Outcome Measures
18
Domain Measurement Level Instrument
Acceptability Admin. staff
Update and implementation of
research evidence
Evidence-Based Practice Att. Scale**
Adoption Campus Drug-free Campus Act Reports
Appropriateness Admin staff
Roger’s Adoption Questions,
Awareness and concern scale
Fidelity
Campus
Admin. staff
PNF checklist*
Sustainability
Campus
Admin. staff
Administrative planning docs
Survey: Behavioral Intent
Stakeholder influenced Of 19Proctor et al. 2011

19. Overview
• Evidence based interventions (EBI) for college
drinking are not universally utilized
• PNF has evolved into a low barrier EBI
• Aims 1 and 2 support efforts to improve
PNF utilization
• Minimal related D&I research; no experiments
19 of 19

20. 20
?