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
(275 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

The California Cancer Registry's United Farmworkers of America Project (California)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Cancer

Goal: The goal of this program is to understand and address cancer in a more effective way.

Youth United Through Health Education (YUTHE) Program (San Francisco)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Adolescent Health, Teens, Racial/Ethnic Minorities, Urban

Goal: The goal of the program is to increase awareness of screening for sexually transmitted infections in African-American adolescents.

Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child-Care (NAP SACC) (USA)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Children's Health, Children

Goal: NAP SACC aims to improve policies, practices, and environments in childcare through better nutrition, increased exercise, and staff-child interactions.

Impact: Intervention centers are more likely to make significant changes in nutrition policies, environments, and practices. The intervention has been replicated in other states to help improve nutrition and physical activity policies and practices.

ASSIST: A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (United Kingdon)

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

Goal: ASSIST aims to develop a diverse group consisting of young people that will then influence their peers to defy the idea of smoking thus reducing the number of adolescent smokers and reducing its health effects.

Impact: A peer-led intervention reduced smoking among adolescents at a modest cost: the ASSIST program cost of £32 ($42 USD) (95% CI = £29.70–£33.80) per student. The incremental cost per student not smoking at 2 years was £1,500 ($1984 USD) (95% CI = £669–£9,947).

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.
Santa Cruz