Search

Objectives Since 2013 the MCH Bureau has supported the National MCH Workforce Development Center to strengthen the Title V MCH workforce. This article describes the Center’s Cohort Program and lessons learned about work-based learning, instruction, and coaching. Description The Cohort Program is a leadership development program that enrolls state-level teams for skill development and work-based learning to address a self-identified challenge in their state. Teams attend a Learning Institute that teaches concepts, skills, and practical tools in systems integration; change management and adaptive leadership; and evidence-based decision-making and implementation. Teams then work back home on their challenges, aided by coaching. The Program’s goals are for teams to expand and use their skills to address their challenge, and that teams would strengthen programs, organizations, and policies, use their skills to address other challenges, and ultimately improve MCH outcomes. Methods This process evaluation is based on evaluation forms completed by attendees at the three-day Learning Institute; six-month follow-up interviews with team leaders; and a modified focus group with staff. Results Participants and staff believe the Cohort Program effectively merges a practical skill-based curriculum, work-based learning in teams, and coaching. The Learning Institute provides a foundation of skills and tools, strengthens the team’s relationship with their coach, and builds the team. The work-based learning period provides structure, accountability, and a “practice space” for teams to apply the Cohort Program’s skills and tools to address their challenge. In this period, teams deepen collaborations and often add partners. The coach provides accessible and tailored guidance in teamwork and skill application. These dimensions helped teams in develop skills and address state-level MCH challenges. Conclusions for Practice Continuing professional development programs can help leaders learn to address complex state-level MCH challenges through integrated classroom-based skills development, work-based learning on state challenges, and tailored coaching.

Background A large national technical assistance (TA) centre in the US provides TA to Head Start regions to help strengthen their use of implementation science frameworks. In administration of TA to regions, the centre has used a ‘co-creation’ model. Aims and objectives This paper describes the co-creative TA approach, including level of dosage (frequency and duration) provided, and interim outcomes achieved. Methods The descriptive paper relies on secondary data analyses of information gathered in the course of delivering the technical assistance. The information gathered included observations of events, surveys, and listening sessions with TA participants. Findings Analyses revealed that the TA providers were successful in the provision of co-created TA and that interim outcomes of trust, mutual accountability, and some integration of implementation science concepts into ongoing regional work were achieved. Discussion and conclusions The TA providers succeeded in delivering TA that was perceived by both observers and participants as involving participants and being tailored to their settings and needs. Limitations include a small sample that was selected based on interest and readiness for engaging in TA and descriptive analyses that did not allow for claims of causality. The promising co-creation approach deserves additional exploration and may provide guidance to others designing technical assistance.

Introduction The National Maternal and Child Health Workforce Development Center provides training, coaching, and consultation to Title V programs. The flagship experience is the Cohort program, a 6-8-month leadership development program where Title V programs convene a multisector team to address a pre-selected state/jurisdictional challenge related to health systems transformation. The overall objective of this paper is to demonstrate the impact of skills developed via the Cohort program on state/jurisdictional capacities to address complex challenges. Methods Qualitative, post-Cohort evaluation data were analyzed using inductive and deductive coding and the “Sort and Sift, Think and Shift” method. Themes and supporting text were summarized using episode profiles for each team and subsequently organized using the EvaluLEAD methodology for identifying and documenting impact. Results Teams brought an array of challenges related to health systems transformation and 94% of teams reported achieving progress on their challenge six-months after the Cohort program. Teams described how the Cohort program improved workforce skills in strategic thinking, systems thinking, adaptive leadership, and communication. Teams also reported the Cohort program contributed to stronger partnerships, improved sustainability of their project, produced mindset shifts, and increased confidence. The Cohort program has also led to improved population health outcomes. Discussion Through working with the Center, Title V leaders and their teams achieved episodic, developmental, and transformative results through application of Center tools and skills to complex challenges. Investment in the MCH workforce through skill development is critical for achieving transformative results and solving “wicked” public health problems.

Purpose This article describes how implementation science informed the design of a national training and technical assistance (TA) center, and how implementation best practices have been used to improve the quality of training and technical assistance services offered to states/jurisdictions. Description An existing tool, based on the Implementation Drivers Framework (in: Fixsen et al., Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature, University of South Florida, The National Implementation Research Network, Tampa, 2005), was adapted to assess efforts of the National MCH Workforce Development Center (the Center) against known implementation best practices. Staff identified specific examples of effective practice and gaps for inclusion in this article. Assessment Using implementation science to establish, assess and improve Center practice was both feasible and practical, requiring intentionality, dedicated time, and staff committed to deepening their understanding of implementation science. The Implementation Drivers framework proved useful for creating a shared approach to analysis and identification of opportunities for improvement of Center practice. Conclusion Policymakers and funding agencies should consider how training and technical assistance programs demonstrate knowledge and use of implementation science best practices among other evidence based practices in their work. Increasing attention to the use of implementation science can contribute to a higher quality of service among technical assistance centers, with the long term goal of improving outcomes for training and assistance recipients and the communities they serve. Establishing the link between customer satisfaction and quality of technical assistance, on the one hand, and long term outcomes, on the other, remains a challenge and an area of focus and learning for the Center.

Traditional efforts to translate evidence-based prevention strategies to communities, at scale, have not often produced socially significant outcomes or the local capacity needed to sustain them. A key gap in many efforts is the transformation of community prevention systems to support and sustain local infrastructure for the active implementation, scaling, and continuous improvement of effective prevention strategies. In this paper, we discuss (1) the emergence of applied implementation science as an important type 3–5 translational extension of traditional type 2 translational prevention science, (2) active implementation and scaling functions to support the full and effective use of evidence-based prevention strategies in practice, (3) the organization and alignment of local infrastructure to embed active implementation and scaling functions within community prevention systems, and (4) policy and practice implications for greater social impact and sustainable use of effective prevention strategies.