Implementation science in higher education: Identifying key determinants in the selection of evidence-based alcohol and substance prevention and treatment.

INTRODUCTION

Although there are evidence-based strategies (EBSs) for alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention and treatment for college students, there has been little focus on evaluating AOD EBS implementation in higher education. The use of implementation strategies in higher education may help bridge the gap between research and practice and improve students' access to EBSs. However, it is important to first understand determinants of AOD EBS program implementation to support AOD EBS selection and implementation strategy selection.

METHODS

We used mixed-methods to examine determinants occurring in the EBS selection and adoption process for AOD prevention and treatment using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework (Aarons et al., 2011), with a focus on the inner organizational context and early EPIS phases. Participants (N = 142) were student affairs professionals across 23 campuses engaged in a statewide prevention coalition. Participants completed a survey assessing constructs relevant to EBS selection. A subset of participants (n = 16) completed semi-structured interviews designed to generate an in-depth understanding of the EBS implementation process on their respective campuses. Content analysis was employed to identify determinants present in the EBS selection process.

RESULTS

Provider perspectives of Inner Context aligning with the exploration phase suggested higher education contexts were generally supportive of EBS implementation via ratings of absorptive capacity (e.g., mechanisms supporting knowledge acquisition) and implementation climate. Leadership support was rated as present "to a moderate extent". Qualitative data highlighted the importance of attending to six key determinants of the implementation process for substance EBSs: collaboration, evidence for initiative, leadership, institution priorities, resources, and student needs and perspectives. Collectively, the integration of qualitative and quantitative data suggests there are important facilitators to address with implementation strategies, and support is needed across campuses to prepare for implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Student affairs professionals within a statewide coalition identified features of EPIS Inner Context (climate, readiness, leadership support) that align with EBS selection and implementation processes and identified key determinants to selecting and adopting AOD prevention EBSs in higher education. Addressing these areas may help build capacity and scale up EBS selection.