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
(1763 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Client Reminders (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Cancer, Adults, Women, Older Adults

Goal: The goal of the Client Reminders is to increase screening for breast cancers.

Impact: The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommends the use of client reminders to increase screening for breast cancers on the basis of strong evidence of effectiveness.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs: Cervical Cancer (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Cancer, Adults, Women

Goal: The goal of the interventions is to reduce client out-of-pocket costs to minimize or remove economic barriers that make it difficult for clients to access cancer screening services.

Impact: Consistently favorable results for interventions that reduce costs for breast cancer screening and several other preventive services suggest that such interventions are likely to be effective for increasing cervical cancer screening as well.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs: Colorectal Cancer (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Cancer, Adults

Goal: The goal of the interventions is to reduce client out-of-pocket costs to minimize or remove economic barriers that make it difficult for clients to access cancer screening services.

Impact: Consistently favorable results for interventions that reduce costs for breast cancer screening and several other preventive services suggest that such interventions are likely to be effective for increasing colorectal cancer screening as well.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Provider-Oriented Screening Interventions: Provider Assessment & Feedback (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Cancer, Adults

Goal: To promote screening of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in community and healthcare settings.

Impact: Provider assessment and feedback can improve the delivery of recommended cancer screenings in relationship to other elements of the specific health care system.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cervical Cancer Prevention & Control, Provider-Oriented Screening Interventions: Provider Reminder & Recall Systems (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Cancer

Goal: The goal of incorporating multicomponent interventions for cancer screenings is to increase cervical cancer screenings and pap smears in communities.

Impact: Multicomponent interventions that include strategies that reduce and address structural barriers increase cervical cancer screening rates by the largest margins and evidence shows that these interventions are also cost-effective.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Colorectal Cancer Prevention & Control, Provider-Oriented Screening Interventions: Provider Reminder & Recall Systems (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Cancer

Goal: The goal of incorporating multicomponent interventions for cancer screenings is to increase colorectal cancer screenings, colonoscopies, and FOTB in communities.

Impact: Multicomponent interventions that include strategies that reduce and address structural barriers increase colorectal cancer screening rates by the largest margins and evidence shows that these interventions are also cost-effective.

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.
Michigan Health Improvement Alliance