A systematic review of adaptations of evidence-based public health interventions globally

• Authors: Ngoc-Cam Escoffery, Emory University; Erin Lebow-Skelley, Emory University; Regine Haardoerfer, Emory University; Elaine A. Boing, Emory University; Hallie Udelson, Emory University; Rich J. Wood, University of Texas School of Public Health; Marieke A. Hartman, University of Texas School of Public Health; Maria E. Fernandez, University of Texas School of Public Health; Patricia D. Mullen, University of Texas School of Public Health
• Journal Title: Implementation Science
• Volume: Volume 13, Number 1
• Publisher: BMC (part of Springer Nature) | 2018-09-26, Pages 125-125
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0815-9
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Health Care Management; Health Sciences, Public Health
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Health Care Sciences & Services; Health Policy & Services; Adaptation; Intervention; Modifications; Implementation; Evidence-based; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; SELF-MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; HIV SEXUAL RISK; POSITIVE PREVENTION INTERVENTION; OLDER AFRICAN-AMERICANS; RURAL WESTERN KENYA; CULTURAL-ADAPTATION; BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS; PARENTING INTERVENTION; FAMILY INTERVENTION

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adaptations of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) often occur. However, little is known about the reasons for adaptation, the adaptation process, and outcomes of adapted EBIs. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following questions: (1) What are the reasons for and common types of adaptations being made to EBIs in community settings as reported in the published literature? (2) What steps are described in making adaptations to EBIs? and (3) What outcomes are assessed in evaluations of adapted EBIs?METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of English language publications that described adaptations of public health EBIs. We searched Ovid PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycNET, and CINAHL and citations of included studies for adapted public health EBIs. We abstracted characteristics of the original and adapted populations and settings, reasons for adaptation, types of modifications, use of an adaptation framework, adaptation steps, and evaluation outcomes.RESULTS: Forty-two distinct EBIs were found focusing on HIV/AIDS, mental health, substance abuse, and chronic illnesses. More than half (62%) reported on adaptations in the USA. Frequent reasons for adaptation included the need for cultural appropriateness (64.3%), focusing on a new target population (59.5%), and implementing in a new setting (57.1%). Common adaptations were content (100%), context (95.2%), cultural modifications (73.8%), and delivery (61.9%). Most study authors conducted a community assessment, prepared new materials, implemented the adapted intervention, evaluated or planned to evaluate the intervention, determined needed changes, trained staff members, and consulted experts/stakeholders. Most studies that reported an evaluation (k = 36) included behavioral outcomes (71.4%), acceptability (66.7%), fidelity (52.4%), and feasibility (52.4%). Fewer measured adoption (47.6%) and changes in practice (21.4%).CONCLUSIONS: These findings advance our understanding of the patterns and effects of modifications of EBIs that are reported in published studies and suggest areas of further research to understand and guide the adaptation process. Furthermore, findings can inform better reporting of adapted EBIs and inform capacity building efforts to assist health professionals in adapting EBIs.