Active involved community partnerships: co-creating implementation infrastructure for getting to and sustaining social impact
- PMID: 28573356
- PMCID: PMC5645286
- DOI: 10.1007/s13142-017-0503-3
Active involved community partnerships: co-creating implementation infrastructure for getting to and sustaining social impact
Abstract
Active involved community partnerships (AICPs) are essential to co-create implementation infrastructure and translate evidence into real-world practice. Across varied forms, AICPs cultivate community and tribal members as agents of change, blending research and organizational knowledge with relationships, context, culture, and local wisdom. Unlike selective engagement, AICPs enable active involvement of partners in the ongoing process of implementation and sustainability. This includes defining the problem, developing solutions, detecting practice changes, aligning organizational supports, and nurturing shared responsibility, accountability, and ownership for implementation. This paper builds on previously established active implementation and scaling functions by outlining key AICP functions to close the research-practice gap. Part of a federal initiative, California Partners for Permanency (CAPP) integrated AICP functions for implementation and system change to reduce disproportionality and disparities in long-term foster care. This paper outlines their experience defining and embedding five AICP functions: (1) relationship-building; (2) addressing system barriers; (3) establishing culturally relevant supports and services; (4) meaningful involvement in implementation; and (5) ongoing communication and feedback for continuous improvement. Planning for social impact requires the integration of AICP with other active implementation and scaling functions. Through concrete examples, authors bring multilevel AICP roles to life and discuss implications for implementation research and practice.
Keywords: Community; Implementation; Partnership; Sustainability; Tribes.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In: Bemmel J, McCray AT, editors. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2000: Patient-Centered Systems. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft; 2000. pp. 65–70. - PubMed
-
- Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F. 2005 Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network; .
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous
