3.8 Article

Translating Evidence-Based Interventions Into Practice: The Design and Development of the Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN)

期刊

HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 9S-19S

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1524839911412594

关键词

asthma; chronic disease; health disparities; lay health advisors; community health workers; partnerships/coalitions; community intervention

资金

  1. Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN)
  2. Merck Company Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pediatric asthma is a multifactorial disease, requiring complex, interrelated interventions addressing children, families, schools, and communities. The Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN) is a nonprofit organization that provides support to translate evidence-based interventions from research to practice. MCAN developed the rationale and vision for the program through a phased approach, including an extensive literature review, stakeholder engagement, and evaluation of funding gaps. The analysis pointed to the need to identify pediatric asthma interventions implemented in urban U.S. settings that have demonstrated efficacy and materials for replication and to translate the interventions into wider practice. In addition to this overall MCAN objective, specific goals included service and system integration through linkages among health care providers, schools, community-based organizations, patients, parents, and other caregivers. MCAN selected sites based on demonstrated ability to implement effective interventions and to address multiple contexts of pediatric asthma prevention and management. Selected MCAN program sites were mature institutions or organizations with significant infrastructure, existing funding, and the ability to provide services without requiring a lengthy planning period. Program sites were located in communities with high asthma morbidity and intended to integrate new elements into existing programs to create comprehensive care approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据