1

DISSEMINATING EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS

Supplementary Material I

Calculation of the number of practitioners that need to be trained
The project’s implementation group (including program and city stakeholders) planned and determined the practitioner training. According to the group, the expected number of families reached per practitioner was a compromise resultingfroma dynamic decision process involving practitioners, the city’s bureau of families and program staff. The following aspects influenced their decisions:
  • Providing courses of varying intensity for different consumers (children, parents, preschool-teachers), institutions and practitioners
  • Considering the practitioners' preferences for a specific training
  • Enabling efficientutilization of the given budget
The exact number of planned courses conducted and the resulting number of families reached (see below) were dependent on program format (individual vs. group) and intensity (brief vs. intense interventions). A practitioner drop-out rate of 10% was expected. The target population was 11,500 families.
Program / Families reached per practitioner / Practitioner training slots / Total of families reachedper program/level / Total of families reached with 10% attrition per year
Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 1 / Year 2
EFFEKT / 16 / 16 / 25 / 400 / 400 / 360 / 320
PEP / 10 parents +10 teachers / 10 parents +10 teachers / 12 / 240 / 240 / 216 / 192
TP Level 2 Seminar / 30 / 30 / 19 / 570 / 570 / 513 / 456
TP Level 2 Brief Primary Care / Not countable / 40 / - / - / - / -
TP Level 3 Primary Care / 3 / 3 / 68 / 204 / 204 / 184 / 163
TP Level 4 Group
(incl. Stepping Stones) / 12 / 12 / 29 / 348 / 348 / 313 / 278
TP Level 4 Standard / 3 / 3 / 18 / 54 / 54 / 49 / 43
Total (% of target population) / 211 / 3,632 (32%) / 3,087 (27%)*

Figure A. Detailed plan of the practitioner training.

Note. *It was expected that some practitioners would use more than one training slot (e.g., because training in TP Level 3 or 4 was needed to participate in a TP seminar)and thereforereachfewerthan the expected number of families in each program/level they had been trained in. As this would result in a reduced number of families reached, a total reach of 25% of the target population was presumed to berealistic.

1

DISSEMINATING EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS

Level of Practitioners / Level of Organizations / Community
Recruitment
  • Applied inclusion criteria:
(1)The staff worked in an institution that provides support for families within the community
(2)Fit of staff and his or her institution to the programs
(3)Staff’s signed commitment to provide a defined number of free-of-costs services for families within two years, to support the communication strategy of programs and to support the evaluation of the project
(4)Staff’s manager signed commitment to release staff from regular work for initial training, services for families, coaching and pre and post preparations
Training
  • Staff received one to three-day free-of-costs training in one of three prevention programs (with workshops of more intense levels of intervention being longer than those of low-level interventions). Training included demonstrations, practice of new skills in role-plays and feedback
Clinical Support
  • Conducted by program staff:
(1)Individual coaching to ensure treatment fidelity (e.g., use of new skills in practice) via phone or Email initiated by coach or staff (at least 233 contacts)
(2)Thirteen one-day workshops (with 5 to 13 participants each) on site to ensure treatment fidelity in practice as well as efficient peer support
(3)Feedback of staff’s individual consumer outcome upon request / Initial System Interventions
  • Site coordinator was installed. He fostered collaborations (e.g., with community stakeholders, federal government of justice, media, university) to ensure ongoing financial and organizational support for efficient implementation and evaluation of services
Administrative Support
  • Site coordinator fostered necessary changes of administration and infrastructure for program implementation within the community
(1)Fostered communication between program staffand coaches, evaluators, practitioners and community stakeholders for ongoing coordination and adjustment of implementation and evaluation procedures
(2)Provided free-of-costs program materials for staff (e.g., manuals) and consumers (e.g., workbooks, brochures and posters for program promotion), as well as technical assistance for interventions
(3)Motivated and engaged staff in personal communications and with regular newsletters informing about preliminary results of staff performance and consumers; asked for feedback
(4)Created and maintained project website with dates of upcoming courses for families, parenting tips, information about programs, etc.
  • Community conducted an awareness campaign to enhance knowledge of programs within the population (budget 5,000 € ≈ $6,900) including 20,000 flyers, 2,000 posters in local transport, 400 posters at streetlights, 66 large posters at streets, al least 20 newspaper articles, one TV news report and five radio commentaries

Figure B. Details of implementation procedures applied.