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
(2403 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention: Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring Interventions for Improved Blood Pressure Control When Combined with Additional Support

NewCDC

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Impact: The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommends self-measured blood pressure monitoring interventions combined with additional support to improve blood pressure outcomes in patients with high blood pressure. Additional support may include patient counseling, education, or web-based support. Economic evidence indicates that self-measured blood pressure monitoring interventions are cost-effective when they are used with additional support or within team-based care.

Housing and the Role of Hospitals (Chicago, IL)

Filed under Effective Practice, Economy / Housing & Homes, Adults, Urban

Goal: The goal was to create a housing program as one way to respond to chronic homelessness and associated health concerns.

Housing for Health Permanent Supportive Housing Program (Los Angeles County)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Economy / Housing & Homes, Adults, Urban

Goal: Housing for Health program goals are to improve patients’ health, reduce costs to the public health system, and demonstrate DHS’s commitment to addressing homelessness within Los Angeles County.

Impact: The average public service utilization cost per participant for the year prior to housing totaled $38,146; in the year after receiving housing, it totaled $15,358. When taking into account PSH costs, RAND observed a 20-percent net cost savings, suggesting a potential cost benefit of the program.

Increasing Age-Appropriate Immunization Rates for Children in Butler County and Surrounding Area (Butler County, KS)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases, Children, Rural

Goal: The goal of this program was to increase immunization rates in the Butler County area.

Impact: Immunization rates increased from 53.2% to 72.4% and parents reported a better understanding of the importance of timely vaccinations.

Infant Health and Development Program

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health, Children

Goal: The goal of this program was to reduce health and developmental problems for low-birth-weight and premature infants.

Integration of TANF and Child Welfare Systems in El Paso (El Paso County, CO)

Filed under Effective Practice, Economy / Government Assistance, Children, Families

Goal: The goals of this program are to support healthy child development, to provide economic assistance and social services to families, and to protect abused and neglected children.

Intervention Mapping and the Development of a Peer Supported Diabetes Self-Management Program in Rural Alabama (Alabama)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Diabetes, Teens, Older Adults, Racial/Ethnic Minorities, Rural

Goal: The intervention is a diabetes self-management program that utilizes peer advisers to reach patients who have poor health literacy, are physically isolated, and require assistance with managing their diabetes.

Janice Mirikitani Family, Youth and Childcare Center (San Francisco, CA)

Filed under Good Idea, Community / Social Environment, Children, Teens, Adults, Families, Urban

Goal: The Janice Mirikitani Family, Youth and Childcare Center provides award winning childcare, after-school programs, and parenting resources to low-income and homeless families.

Juvenile Intervention and Prevention Program (JIPP) (Los Angeles, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Community / Crime & Crime Prevention, Teens, Urban

Goal: The goal of the Juvenile Intervention and Prevention Program is to help at-risk youth who reside in gang-ridden neighborhoods experience success in school, at home, and in the community.

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.