Practitioners’ Perceptions of and Use of Triple P

  • Samantha SchillingEmail author
  • Jason Fine
  • Victor Silva Ritter
  • Mary E. Haskett
Original Article


A challenge of large-scale adoptions of Triple P is low uptake among accredited practitioners. The purpose of this study was to understand facilitators to program use among 249 practitioners in seven counties involved in a large-scale adoption of Triple P. In an adjusted ordinal logistic regression including length of accreditation and county, the frequency with which practitioners used Triple P was higher among those who perceived a more positive parent response to Triple P services and among those practitioners who perceived Triple P to fit better within their typical services. Agency support was not associated with frequency of use.


Program use Parenting interventions Triple P Implementation and dissemination 



The analyses of extant data was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, through Grant Award Number UL1TR001111 and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant KL2TR001109 (Schilling). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Research Involving Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Sanders MR, Ralph A, Sofronoff K et al (2008) Every family: a population approach to reducing behavioral and emotional problems in children making the transition to school. J Primary Prevent 29(3):197–222Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prinz RJ, Sanders MR, Shapiro CJ et al (2009) Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: the US Triple P system population trial. Prev Sci 10(1):1–12Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prinz J, Sanders M (2006) Testing effects on parenting at a broad scale: the US Triple P system population trial. Prevent Sci 10:1–2Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Graaf I, Speetjens P, Smit F et al (2008) Effectiveness of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program on behavioral problems in children: a meta-analysis. Behav Modif 32(5):714–735Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nowak C, Heinrichs N (2008) A comprehensive meta-analysis of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling: effectiveness and moderating variables. Clin Child Family Psychol Rev 11(3):114Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas R, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ (2007) Behavioral outcomes of parent-child interaction therapy and Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: a review and meta-analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol 35(3):475–495Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanders MR, Kirby JN, Tellegen CL et al (2014) The triple P—Positive Parenting Program: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. Clin Psychol Rev 34(4):337–357Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA et al (2007) Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci 2(1):42Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fixsen D, Naoom S, Blase K et al (2005) Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute Publication# 231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network, TampaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fixsen DL, Blase KA, Naoom SF et al (2009) Core implementation components. Res Soc Work Pract 19(5):531–540Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F et al (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 82(4):581–629Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE et al (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4(1):50Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akin BA, Mariscal SE, Bass L et al (2014) Implementation of an evidence-based intervention to reduce long-term foster care: practitioner perceptions of key challenges and supports. Child Youth Serv Rev 46:285–293Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aarons GA (2004) Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the evidence-based practice attitude scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Ser Res 6(2):61–74Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aarons GA, Cafri G, Lugo L et al (2012) Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: the evidence based practice attitude scale-50. Adm Policy Ment Health 39(5):331–340Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aarons GA, Glisson C, Green PD et al (2012) The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study. Implement Sci 7(1):56Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray M, Joy E, Plath D et al (2013) Implementing evidence-based practice: a review of the empirical research literature. Res Social Work Pract 23(2):157–166Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aarons GA, Palinkas LA (2007) Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: service provider perspectives. Adm Policy Ment Health 34(4):411–419Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Proctor EK, Knudsen KJ, Fedoravicius N et al (2007) Implementation of evidence-based practice in community behavioral health: agency director perspectives. Adm Policy Ment Health 34(5):479–488Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aarons GA, Sawitzky AC (2006) Organizational climate partially mediates the effect of culture on work attitudes and staff turnover in mental health services. Adm Policy Ment Health 33(3):289Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kimber M, Barwick M, Fearing G (2012) Becoming an evidence-based service provider: staff perceptions and experiences of organizational change. J Behav Health Serv Res 39(3):314–332Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanders MR, Prinz RJ, Shapiro CJ (2009) Predicting utilization of evidence-based parenting interventions with organizational, service-provider and client variables. Adm Policy Ment Health 36(2):133–143Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seng AC, Prinz RJ, Sanders MR (2006) The role of training variables in effective dissemination of evidence-based parenting interventions. Int J Ment Health Promot 8(4):20–28Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shapiro CJ, Prinz RJ, Sanders MR (2015) Sustaining use of an evidence-based parenting intervention: practitioner perspectives. J Child Fam Stud 24(6):1615–1624Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kerns S, Negrete A, McCormick E. Year 2 evaluation: findings from a community level implementation of Triple P Positive Parenting Program 2014Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Masters G, Gaven S, Pennington A et al. Summary report: evaluation of the implementation of Triple P in New South Wales. Department of Family & Community Services 2011Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams NJ, Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A et al (2017) Mechanisms of change in the ARC organizational strategy: Increasing mental health clinicians’ EBP adoption through improved organizational culture and capacity. Adm Policy Ment Health 44(2):269–283Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shapiro CJ, Prinz RJ, Sanders MR (2012) Facilitators and barriers to implementation of an evidence-based parenting intervention to prevent child maltreatment: the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Child Maltreat 17(1):86–95Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Asgary-Eden V, Lee CM (2011) So now we’ve picked an evidence-based program, what’s next? Perspectives of service providers and administrators. Prof Psychol 42(2):169Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aarons GA, Wells RS, Zagursky K et al (2009) Implementing evidence-based practice in community mental health agencies: a multiple stakeholder analysis. Am J Public Health 99(11):2087–2095Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Law J, Plunkett C, Taylor J et al (2009) Developing policy in the provision of parenting programmes: integrating a review of reviews with the perspectives of both parents and professionals. Child 35(3):302–312Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A et al (2013) Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Except Child 79(2):213–230Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Asgary-Eden V, Lee CM (2012) Implementing an evidence-based parenting program in community agencies: what helps and what gets in the way? Adm Policy Ment Health 39(6):478–488Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Furlong M, McGilloway S (2015) The longer term experiences of parent training: a qualitative analysis. Child 41(5):687–696Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aarons GA (2006) Transformational and transactional leadership: Association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychiatr Serv 57(8):1162–1169Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Akin BA, Brook J, Byers KD et al (2016) Worker perspectives from the front line: Implementation of evidence-based interventions in child welfare settings. J Child Fam Stud 25(3):870–882Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics, UNC School of MedicineUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations