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
(153 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Asthma: School-Based Self-Management Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Asthma

NewCDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Respiratory Diseases

Impact: The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommends school-based asthma self-management interventions to reduce hospitalizations and emergency room visits among children and adolescents with asthma. Evidence shows interventions are effective when delivered by trained school staff, nurses, and health educators in elementary, middle, and high schools serving diverse populations.
When implemented in schools in low-income or minority communities, interventions are likely to promote health equity.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Adolescent Health: Person-to-Person Interventions to Improve Caregivers' Parenting Skills (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Adolescent Health, Teens, Families

Goal: To modify adolescents' risk and protective behaviors by improving their caregivers' parenting skills based on sufficient evidence of effectiveness in reducing adolescent risk behaviors.

Impact: Although the estimated effects varied substantially and were not statistically significant, risk behaviors decreased and youth participants reported increased refusal skills and self efficacy for avoiding risky behaviors in the future.

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Assessment of Health Risks with Feedback to Change Employees' Health (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Wellness & Lifestyle, Adults

Impact: There is strong evidence that the use of assessments of health risks with feedback, combined with health education programs, improves outcomes regarding tobacco use, dietary fat intake, blood pressure, cholesterol, and number of days lost due to illness or disability.

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: Behavioral and Social: Enhanced School-Based Physical Education (USA)

CDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Physical Activity, Children, Teens

Impact: Enhanced school-based physical education is recommended to increase physical activity based on strong evidence of effectiveness in increasing the amount of time students spend in moderate- or vigorous- intensity physical activity during PE classes. Enhanced school=based PE resulted in 10 percentage points more PE class time engaged in moderate- or vigorous-intensity physical activity as compared to standard PE classes.

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

CDC

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

Goal: The goal of incorporating multicomponent interventions for cancer screenings is to increase breast cancer screenings in communities.

Impact: Multicomponent interventions that include strategies that reduce and address structural barriers increase cancer screening rates by the largest margins.

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.
MiCalhoun