English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Interventions for the prevention of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use (ATOD) have become more sophisticated (Biglan, Mrazek, Carnine, & Flay, 2003; Botvin & Griffin, 2005), partly because the demand for accountability from federal and private funding has increased (Gorman, 2002a, 2002b). Community-level interventions1'2 are multi-component interventions that combine individual and environmental change strategies across multiple settings to prevent dysfunction and promote well-being among population groups in a defined local community (Wandersman and Florin, 2003). A community-level intervention delivered by a community coalition is a model being advocated in the academic literature (Warner, 2000) and increasingly promulgated by federal funding agencies. There is, however, little or no literature on the decision-making process of the community-based organizations and coalitions who must choose whether to adopt or reject this model. This study sought to answer three main questions: 1) to determine how many characteristics3 in the individual and organizational stages of Rogers' innovationdecision process (1995) were used by the community-based organizations and coalitions in their decision making process; 2) to determine which characteristics were most influential in the decision to ~dopt or reject the community-level intervention; and 3) to determine whether the characteristics that influence a decision to adopt differ for organizations representing culturally diverse communities. I Tenns such as "community-based", "comprehensive community", "community coalition", and ~'collaborative partnerships" have also been used to refer to interventions with similar characteristics. Local community is often geographically defined (e.g. , neighborhood or municipality) but may be a ~o~~ity of presumed common interest (e.g., the gay community). This is to be contrasted with an expectation that Roger's stages would be followed in sequence. Rogers himself (1995) states that stages may NOT follow the specific order outlined in his model. For example, in the individual process the stage order might be knowledge-decision-persuasion. Fourteen participants from seven organizations funded through the community-level intervention funding pool and seven organizations funded through an alternative funding pool to implement evidence-based curricula completed a mixedmethod, semi-structured interview between February 21 and April 4, 2008. The questionnaire was designed to capture information regarding the decision-making process of the organization. Participants were first asked a number of non-guiding, open-ended questions before progressing through the remaining sections of the interview which intentionally guided the respondent systematically through select stages in Rogers' individual and organizational innovation-decision process. Findings from the analyses support the application of Rogers' organization innovation-decision process model in combination with specific characteristics from the individual model for understanding community-based organization and coalition funding decisions. The most relevant and influential stages and overarching characteristics from the models were the Matching stage, Characteristics of the Decision-maker, Characteristics of the Innovation, and Communication Behavior. An analysis of organizations serving culturally diverse organizations did not reveal any differences in coded themes, however, the low number of such organizations in this sample may have been a factor. A discussion of the findings and relevant implications are provided as well as a summary of the limitations ofthis study. Acknowledgements I owe a great huge thanks to many people beginning with my family and friends who played a part in helping me complete this project; this is as much mine as it is theirs. Without their support throughout this long process whether offering a suggested revision, hand delivering a form on my behalf, or just checking-in on my progress I probably would not have been able to pull this off. It truly took a community to complete this dissertation! I'd like to send a special thanks to my major professor, Paul Florin, who kept me going and focused. He said it was all part of the job but that did not take away from the feeling that he had gone the extra mile to help me finish which was great since I was 300 miles away! He came through in the clutch and I am sincerely thankful for it. I'd like to thank my committee, Betsy Cooper the chair, John Boulmetis, Al Berman and John Stevenson. John Stevenson particularly provided guidance throughout the entire process and has been a mentor for many years; thank you John!! I'd like to thank my .current employer, the Maine Center for Public Health. They gave me the time and in-kind to collect my data which was absolutely critical. I'd like to thank the participants who gave their time to share their experiences with me. Without their input I wouldn't have had as much to talk about! And most importantly, I would especially like to thank my partner for her patience and support. She took care of our infant twins to give me the time I needed to finish this project which for those who have not raised twins, you'll just have to take my word for it it's an unbelievably huge, huge thing!!!

Exploring the Decision Making Process of Prevention Providers in Adopting or Rejecting a Community-Level Approach to Substance Abuse Prevention