Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Prevention Science 8/2020

01-11-2020 | Child Maltreatment

Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool to Support the Adoption of Evidence-Based Child Maltreatment Prevention Programs

Authors: Gracelyn Cruden, Leah Frerichs, Byron J. Powell, Paul Lanier, C. Hendricks Brown, Kristen Hassmiller Lich

Published in: Prevention Science | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Decision-makers need to consider a range of factors when selecting evidence-based programs (EBPs) for implementation, which can be especially challenging when addressing complex issues such as child maltreatment prevention. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) frameworks and tools are useful for evaluating such complex decisions. We describe the development and testing of the first MCDA tool to compare EBPs for child neglect prevention. To develop the tool, we engaged stakeholders (n = 8) to define the problem and identify 13 criteria and associated weights. In a pilot study, we tested the MCDA tool with decision-makers (n = 11) who were asked to rank three evidence-based child neglect prevention interventions both with and without the tool. The MCDA’s weighted sum intervention ranking differed from the ranking without the tool in the majority of the sample (55%). Decision-makers provided guidance on criteria that should be clarified or added, resulting in 16 criteria in an iterated tool. The most frequent criterion suggestions related to community acceptance of the intervention, health equity, implementation supports, and sustainability. Decision-maker feedback guided user interface refinements. The MCDA tool was generally well accepted by decision-makers due to their trust in the stakeholder engagement process. More research is needed to understand the acceptability of MCDA approaches in additional contexts and whether EBPs adopted with decision support have different population health impacts compared with EBPs adopted without support. MCDA tools could facilitate evidence-based responses to federal policy and funding opportunities such as the Families First Preventive Services Act.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
go back to reference Aarons, G. A., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34, 411–419.CrossRef Aarons, G. A., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34, 411–419.CrossRef
go back to reference Baumann, A., Cabassa, L. J., & Stirman, S. W. (2017). Adaptation in dissemination and implementation science. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice, 2, 286–300. Baumann, A., Cabassa, L. J., & Stirman, S. W. (2017). Adaptation in dissemination and implementation science. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice, 2, 286–300.
go back to reference Bonabeau, E. (2003). Don’t trust your gut (pp. 1–8). McKinsey Quarterly. Bonabeau, E. (2003). Don’t trust your gut (pp. 1–8). McKinsey Quarterly.
go back to reference Buffett, C., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2007). Can I use this evidence in my program decision?: Assessing applicability and transferability of evidence. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT): Ontario, Canada. Buffett, C., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2007). Can I use this evidence in my program decision?: Assessing applicability and transferability of evidence. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT): Ontario, Canada.
go back to reference Mühlbacher, A. C., & Kaczynski, A. (2016). Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: The use, current research and future development of MCDA. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 14, 29–40.CrossRef Mühlbacher, A. C., & Kaczynski, A. (2016). Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: The use, current research and future development of MCDA. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 14, 29–40.CrossRef
go back to reference Thokala, P., Devlin, N., Marsh, K., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kalo, Z., Longrenn, T., Mussen, F., Peacock, S., Watkins, J., & Ijzerman, M. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making - an introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value in Health, 19, 1–13.CrossRef Thokala, P., Devlin, N., Marsh, K., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kalo, Z., Longrenn, T., Mussen, F., Peacock, S., Watkins, J., & Ijzerman, M. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making - an introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value in Health, 19, 1–13.CrossRef
go back to reference Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRef Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool to Support the Adoption of Evidence-Based Child Maltreatment Prevention Programs
Authors
Gracelyn Cruden
Leah Frerichs
Byron J. Powell
Paul Lanier
C. Hendricks Brown
Kristen Hassmiller Lich
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Prevention Science / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 1389-4986
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6695
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01174-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

Prevention Science 8/2020 Go to the issue