Copy URL
Home > Promising Practices

Promising Practices

The Promising Practices database informs professionals and community members about documented approaches to improving community health and quality of life.

The ultimate goal is to support the systematic adoption, implementation, and evaluation of successful programs, practices, and policy changes. The database provides carefully reviewed, documented, and ranked practices that range from good ideas to evidence-based practices.
Learn more about the ranking methodology.

Submit a Promising Practice

Search Filters Clear all
(2011 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Be a Star (St Louis, MO)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Alcohol & Drug Use, Children

Goal: The Be a Star program was developed to help preadolescents gain the knowledge and skills necessary to resist drugs.

Impact: During the third year of the evaluation, very strong differences emerged between intervention and control groups. The treatment groups scored significantly higher on the scales rating family bonding, pro-social behavior, self-concept, self-control, decision-making, emotional awareness, assertiveness, cooperation, attitudes toward drugs and alcohol, self-efficacy, attitudes toward African-American culture, and school bonding.

Border Binge-Drinking Reduction Program (Tijuana, Mexico)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Alcohol & Drug Use, Children, Teens

Goal: The goal of this program is to reduce public health and safety problems related to U.S. teen & binge drinking in Mexico.

Impact: With IPS leadership, there was a reduction in youth nighttime crashes by 45% and 37% fewer nighttime crossers with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher.

Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention of College Students (BASICS) (Seattle, WA)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Alcohol & Drug Use, Children, Teens

Goal: The aims of the BASICS program are 1) to reduce alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences, 2) to promote healthier choices among young adults, and 3) to provide important information and coping skills for risk reduction.

Impact: Students who received a brief individual preventive intervention had significantly greater reductions in negative consequences that persisted over a 4-year period than their control-group counterparts. For those individuals receiving the brief intervention, dependence symptoms were more likely to decrease and less likely to increase.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Asthma Control: Home-Based Multi-Trigger, Multicomponent Environmental Interventions (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Respiratory Diseases, Children, Teens

Goal: To improve overall quality of life and productivity for children and adolescents that suffer from asthma.

Impact: Home-based multi-trigger, multi-component interventions with a combination of minor or moderate environmental remediation with an education component provide good value based on improvement in symptoms free days.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Decreasing Tobacco Use Among Workers: Incentives & Competitions to Increase Smoking Cessation (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Alcohol & Drug Use, Adults

Impact: Community mobilization integrated with additional interventions (i.e. stronger local laws for retailers) decrease youth tobacco use and access to these products.

An Effective Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success and/or promise in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures of improvement in outcome of interest (i.e. increase in voter registration, not just delivery of voter registration drive) and/ or the outcome measure is increased or improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant.

A Good Idea meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program funding source, program implementation steps and outcomes.
  2. The program evaluation is limited to descriptive measure(s) of success/accomplishment (i.e., program participation rates, number of services/education sessions/radio messages provided). Note: oftentimes, the program has been newly implemented and a program evaluation has not yet been conducted. Programs that have not yet been evaluated, but which show promise in improving health or quality of life, are classified as Good Ideas until an evaluation is conducted.

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.