Implementing Intergenerational Best Practices in Community-Based Settings: A Preliminary Study

Abstract

Evidence-based intergenerational (IG) programs bring youth and older adults together in shared activities and promote socioemotional health across age-groups. The core components of these IG programs include 14 IG “best practices” that should be implemented during IG program sessions to optimize program effectiveness for both youth and older adult participants. Despite the proliferation of IG programs across the United States, it is unclear the extent to which these IG best practices have been implemented in the community. This preliminary study assesses the implementation of IG best practices at two community-based sites by program leaders who participated in a multifaceted professional education intervention for IG best practice use. Implementation of best practices was measured through the Best Practices Checklist completed by program leaders and trained coders as well as through narrative written comments. Program leaders indicated that they were able to consistently implement six out of the 14 IG best practices in 46 IG sessions, whereas the best practice named “Adaptations to equipment were made” was least likely to be implemented. Analysis of narrative comments indicated that (a) the group arrangement of participants and (b) program leaders’ familiarity with activities also influenced implementation. While many IG best practices can be implemented in the community, some best practices can be implemented with greater ease and consistency. Training resources can support IG best practice implementation; however, our multifaceted professional education intervention may benefit from the addition of case examples or vignettes to depict potential strategies for optimizing evidence-based IG practices.

Keywords

intergenerational implementation com-munity-based programming training

Intergenerational (IG) programs bring youth (younger than 24 years) and older adults (usually 50 years of age and older) together to work on a shared task or activity (Generations United, 2020). IG programs possess exceptional potential to benefit both youth and older adults (Gualano et al., 2018). Prior studies demonstrated how IG programs helped youth build trusting relationships, explore identity, learn about culture, and improve reading (Alant et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2017; Gruenewald et al., 2016). For older adults, these programs promote relationships, social engagement, executive functioning, and memory (Fried et al., 2013; Gerardo et al., 2019; Warburton, 2014). IG programming can be found where youth and elder services are colocated, such as a child care located in the same building as an adult day services center (Jarrott, 2019), or one group may visit the other, such as when college-age students visit older adults in their own homes or residential facilities (Roodin et al., 2013; Zucchero & Gibson, 2019). Regardless of the variation in settings, leaders in the IG field have endorsed a set of 14 best practices of IG programs that are considered to be the evidence-based, programmatic “core components” that enhance the IG experience and outcomes for youth and older adults alike (Jarrott et al., 2019).

The selection of these 14 best practices (Table 1) was informed by prior evidence in which IG programming was implemented in the context of controlled, community-based experiments and delivered by study team members to strengthen internal validity needed to make inferences about IG programs’ effectiveness (Jarrott et al., 2019). However, unlike community-based experiments that often have access to external study staff and can offer financial incentives to organizations for their study participation, real-world implementation of IG programming requires greater organizational commitment and local leadership to train professionals and manage the program. While hundreds of IG programs currently operate in the United States (Jarrott, 2019), it remains unclear whether evidence-based IG programming can be implemented in nonexperimental community settings. Staff members in child care or adult day service settings, like those involved in the current study, experience resource constraints, high caseloads, and competing demands for their time that might prevent them from implementing IG best practices consistently even after receiving professional preparation (Jarrott et al., 2011; Weaver et al., 2019).

Table 1

Descriptions of Intergenerational (IG) Best Practices

Best practice	Illustration
Leaders discussed the activity in relation to participant interests or experiences to encourage IG interaction.	In a discussion of transportation, the facilitator invites an older adult to share a story of how she used to ride a donkey to school.
Age and role appropriate for IG activities for child participants	A gardening activity incorporates child size equipment and is planned for 15-minute sessions to match children’s attention span.
Age and role appropriate for IG activities for adult participants	Older adults are invited to help the 3-year-olds put together a 10-piece puzzle.
Ratio of adult and child participants was equal or near equal.	Eight children and 5 older adults join the IG gardening activity.
Activity was conducted with IG pairs or small IG groups.	Mr. Jones helps Sarah and John paint their group’s pumpkin. Similar arrangements are made with the other older adult volunteers and children.
Arrangement of materials was paired between IG participants.	Ms. Teri and Tony have one container, one trowel, one watering cup, and one packet of seeds to plant together.
Leaders guided the activity to promote IG interaction.	When Tony asks his teacher for a marker for his and Ms. Teri’s plant, they pass the marker to Ms. Teri and asks her to help Tony label the plant.
Adaptations to equipment were made.	Raised planters are used so that older adults can share in the gardening from a chair or wheelchair.
Adaptations to the physical space were made.	Adult size chairs with arms are brought into the classroom and the floor cleared of toys before older adults visit.
Distractions were minimized.	The radio is turned off, the piano closed, and a door closed to reduce distractions during IG programming in a side room.
Staff avoided over facilitation.	After inviting IG pairs to select their story to read together, the staff member steps back to watch how the pairs are interacting.
Staff were responsive to both generations of participants.	The teacher responds to the older adult’s request for more glue as the adult day service staff member helps a child clean their hands.
Staff moved around the activity area	Activity leaders move between the IG pairs, checking on them periodically and ensuring each has needed materials.
The IG activity was documented.	Activity leaders took photos of the IG partners at the raised bed before and after it was planted; these will be shared at the site message board.

Purpose

To assess the extent to which IG programming can be implemented in routine community settings, the current study examined community-based professionals’ (herein forth referred to as “program leaders”) use of 14 best practices in IG programs at two community sites. To do this, we addressed three main objectives: (a) assess the degree to which IG program leaders can implement best practices after participating in a multifaceted training, (b) evaluate program leaders’ perceived ability to implement best practices compared with the perceptions of trained observers who analyzed video-recorded IG sessions, and (c) identify factors that influence the implementation of all 14 IG best practices. Findings from this preliminary study are intended to inform the refinement of training and other implementation strategies to enhance the scale-up of IG best practices in community-based settings that reach both children and older adults.

Methods

Design and Setting

This exploratory, preliminary study was conducted as part of a larger sustainable community project funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To examine the implementation of IG best practices, the Project TRIP (Transforming Relationships through Intergenerational Programs) team partnered with Virginia Cooperative Extension county offices to train early-childhood education and older adult care professionals to implement IG best practices in two community preschools. Project TRIP team members delivered multifaceted IG best practice training to staff responsible for delivering IG programming at the sites. Preschool Site 1 was colocated with an adult day service program, whose older adult participants served as the children’s IG partners. Preschool Site 2 recruited older adult volunteers from the local community to participate in IG programming. All study procedures received institutional review board approval at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (#IRB-11-580). Due to our focus on the implementation of IG best practices, our description of study activities aligns with the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) checklist (see Supplemental Appendix A).

Participant Characteristics

Nine female early-childhood and adult day service staff members served as IG program leaders at the two sites. With the exception of the older adult volunteer coordinator at Site 2, who was a Project TRIP program associate, leaders were employees at their respective sites. The leaders ranged in age from their 20s to their 60s; three fourths were White and one quarter African American. They possessed professional credentials ranging from early-childhood education to nursing, participated in a multifaceted IG best practices training, and had not previously organized IG program sessions. IG program leaders were responsible for selecting which type of IG activity (e.g., arts and crafts, music, games) to lead based on the needs and interests of the older adult and child participants. IG programming occurred weekly at each site, in a spare meeting or class room, with two to eight preschool-age children (infant and toddler classrooms were excluded) and two to 11 older adults joining activities that lasted approximately 30 minutes. Staffing met or exceeded state licensing requirements, with one to two teachers and one or more adult day service staff or a volunteer coordinator present for the duration of the IG activities.

Description of Intergenerational Best Practices Multifaceted Training

Prior to the onset of IG programming, program leaders participated in a multifaceted training (Table 2) designed to introduce the IG best practices. Training consisted of the following elements: (a) an initial 2-hour educational meeting held by the Project TRIP developer that provided a project overview and introduced the best practices and the Best Practices Checklist (described next), (b) online training modules providing detailed information with illustrations and visuals depicting the best practices (follow-up modules repeated every 3 months), (c) two IG newsletters per month sent to program leaders, and (d) four follow-up site visits from Project TRIP staff over the 15-month project period (February 2015–May 2016). The reason for adopting a multifaceted IG training approach was based on prior research, which has indicated that singular training sessions alone are ineffective for changing behaviors of individuals involved in implementing new programs or interventions (Beidas et al., 2012; Nadeem et al., 2013).

Table 2

Specification of Multifaceted Intergenerational (IG) Training for Program Leaders

Specification criteria	Description	Application
a. Actor	Individual who delivers the implementation strategy	Principal investigator for Project TRIP
b. Action	Explanation of what was performed during the implementation strategy	Project TRIP team conducted initial educational meeting, provided online modules and written resources, and delivered follow-up workshops and visits
c. Action target	Individuals (or units) of analysis	Community IG program leaders
d. Temporality	Explanation of when the strategy is used	Initial 2-hour educational meeting preceded implementation of IG programming, written newsletters were provided 2 months after the educational meeting, IG modules were completed by facilitators 6 months after educational meeting, and follow-up sessions were completed every 3 months
e. Dosage	Rate of delivery	One initial IG educational meeting One set of online modules Two newsletters per month Four follow-up visits
f. Implementation outcome	Select from eight implementation outcomes (Proctor et al., 2011).	Adoption of best practices
g. Justification	Theoretical, empirical, or pragmatic support of the implementation strategy	Trainings were structured based on feedback from stakeholders

Note. TRIP = Transforming Relationships through Intergenerational Programs.

Data Collection

In total, we collected 46 videos of IG program sessions (n = 26, Site 1; n = 20, Site 2). Videos lasted between 15 and 40 minutes in duration and captured activities such as playing movement-based games, singing and listening to music, making season- and holiday-themed crafts, and using technology (e.g., electronic tablets). At the end of each IG session, program leaders completed the Best Practices Checklist to document their perceived ability to implement each IG best practice.

Best Practices Checklist

To assess the frequency with which the 14 IG best practices were implemented during each of the 46 IG program sessions, leaders completed the Best Practices Checklist, which was drawn from the Intergenerational Observation Scale (Jarrott et al., 2008). Using the Best Practices Checklist, program leaders indicated which of the IG best practices they implemented during each IG program session.

Factors Influencing Implementation

After indicating whether each of the 14 best practices were implemented (yes/no) during each session, program leaders were provided with the following prompt at the end of the Best Practices Checklist: “How successful was the IG activity and what, if any, modifications would you make? Please explain your answer.” This prompt allowed program leaders to provide narrative comments representing their perceptions of successes and challenges implementing the best practices during each IG activity.

Video-Recorded Observations

Forty six IG program sessions were video-recorded (26 at Site 1 and 20 at Site 2) by program leaders to provide the Project TRIP team with additional data representing the extent to which IG best practices were implemented at the two community partner sites. These 46 recorded sessions comprised 40% of the combined 114 IG sessions implemented by the two sites over the 15-month project period. The remaining sessions (32 at Site 1 and 36 at Site 2) were not captured through video recording. Geographic distance from the preschool sites precluded research team members from performing live coding. Therefore, video recordings, obtained with an iPad positioned on a tripod, captured the entire IG programming space and the participants for the entire activity duration. Recordings, which were uploaded to a secure, institutional review board–approved storage system, allowed for the systematic analysis of IG best practices implementation by two trained coders (graduate research assistants). Prior to analyzing video recordings, both coders analyzed sample videos and achieved acceptable interrater reliability (IRR; Cohen’s κ > .60). After IRR was established, coders used the Best Practices Checklist to indicate how frequently they observed each best practice being implemented in the video recordings. Unlike the program leaders, trained observers did not respond to the narrative prompt at the end of the Best Practices Checklist since it was designed to capture real-time reflections of the program leaders.

Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to calculate the rate at which each IG best practice was implemented (0% = not implemented during any sessions; 100% = implemented during all sessions), as perceived by program leaders and trained observers, in order to determine the extent to which IG best practices could be implemented at our community sites (Study objective a). Each of the best practice was coded as a 0 = no or a 1 = yes to indicate whether the best practice was implemented during each of the 46 IG sessions. Rates of IG best practices implementation as perceived by program leaders were calculated separately from rates of implementation perceived by trained observers to identify discrepancies in perceived implementation. These discrepancies were then assessed by means of chi-square analysis and Fisher’s exact tests (Study objective b). During our analysis, we noted that the perceived rates of implementation for each best practice did not always yield sufficient variability to conduct chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. This warranted the need for the research team to calculate percent agreement between the program leaders’ and trained observers’ rates of perceived best practice implementation. Thus, we calculated the difference between each leader’s rating for individual best practice implementation and the trained observer’s rating. A difference score of 0 indicated agreement that the practice was or was not used. A score of 1 indicated that the observer but not the program leader coded that the best practice was implemented, and a score of −1 indicated that the program leader but not the observer coded that the best practice as having occurred. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, we did not conduct a power analysis to determine target sample size of recorded IG program sessions. All analyses were completed in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences–Version 25.

To assess determinants that influenced IG best practices implementation (Study Objective c), we utilized provisional coding (Saldana, 2009) during our analysis of the narrative comments that were provided by IG program leaders on the Best Practices Checklist for each video-recorded IG session. Similar to content analysis, provisional coding is a deductive approach to coding qualitative data. The 14 best practices served as the predetermined code list that two project team members used to analyze all IG program leader comments through keyword and phrase searching. Next, both team members independently coded the comments and met regularly to discuss discrepancies. When needed, the project principal investigator addressed discrepancies in collaboration with the two team members to establish consensus.

Results

IG programming at Site 1 reached a total of 19 preschoolers and 21 older adults who were affiliated with the colocated adult day service center, whereas programming at Site 2 reached 8 preschoolers and 5 older adults from the local community. The preschoolers ranged in age from 2 to 5 years (M = 3.41, SD = 0.636). Most of the preschoolers were male (n = 17, 63%) and White (n = 25, 92.6%). The older adults ranged in age from 61 to 94 years (M = 78.24, SD = 9.10). Among older adult participants 57.7% were women (n = 15). Most older adult participants identified as White (n = 21, 80.8%).

Assessment of Best Practice Implementation

Program Leaders

Program leaders reported that they carried out six best practices in all 46 sessions: “Age and role appropriate activity for child participants,” “Age and role appropriate activity for adult participants,” “Activity was conducted with IG pairs or small IG groups,” “Distractions were minimized,” “Staff moved around the activity area,” and “The IG activity was documented.” The best practice, “Adaptations to equipment were made,” was least likely to be implemented, as noted in just 31 sessions, based on Best Practices Checklist responses from program leaders (Table 3).

Table 3

Rates of Intergenerational (IG) Best Practices Implementation

Best practice	% Leader said yes (n)	% Observer said yes (n)	Agreement (%)	χ²	p
Leaders discussed the activity in relation to participant interests or experiences to encourage IG interaction.	89.1 (41)	71.7 (33)	69.6	0.381	.439
Age and role appropriateness of IG activities for child participants^a	100.00 (46)	100.00 (46)	100.0	—	—
Age and role appropriateness of IG activities for adult participants^a	100.00 (46)	93.5 (43)	93.5	—	—
Ratio of adult and child participants was equal or near equal	97.8 (45)	82.6 (38)	84.8	4.856	.174
Activity was conducted with IG pairs or small IG groups^a	100.00 (46)	82.6 (38)	82.6	—	—
Arrangement of materials was paired between IG participants^a,b	97.8 (45)	67.4 (29)	67.4	—	—
Leaders guided the activity to promote IG interaction^b	97.8 (45)	67.4 (31)	65.2	0.495	.674
Adaptations to equipment were made^b	67.4 (31)	19.6 (9)	34.8	0.723	.697
Adaptations to the physical space were made	80.4 (37)	89.1 (41)	71.1	0.318	.853
Distractions were minimized^a	100.00 (46)	100.00 (46)	100.0	—	—
Staff avoided overfacilitation^a	97.8 (45)	100.00 (46)	97.8	—	—
Staff were responsive to both generations of participants	97.8 (45)	91.3 (42)	89.1	0.097	.913
Staff moved around the activity area^a	100.0 (46)	95.7 (44)	95.7	—	—
The IG activity was documented^a	100.00 (46)	100.00 (46)	100.0	—	—

Note. N = 46 video recordings of individual IG program sessions.

Unable to calculate chi-square values due to a lack of variability in responses. ^bItems from Best Practices Checklist that were indicated as “not applicable” by the leader/observer.

Trained Observers

According to trained observers who coded the 46 video-recorded IG sessions, program leaders consistently implemented four best practices in 100% of sessions: “Age and role appropriate activity for child participants,” “Distractions were minimized,” “Staff avoided over facilitation,” and “The IG activity was documented.” Trained observers noted that the “Adaptations to equipment were made” best practice was implemented in just nine of the 46 IG sessions.

Comparing Ratings of Implementation Between Leaders and Observers

For three of the best practices, both trained observers and program leaders’ perceived rates of implementation to be 100% during all IG sessions: “Age and role appropriate activity for child participants,” “Distractions were minimized,” and “The IG activity was documented.” Out of the 14 best practices, program leaders and trained observers had moderate agreement rates (<80%) relative to the implementation of four best practices: “Adaptations to physical space were made” (71.1% agreement), “Arrangement of materials was paired between IG participants” (67.4%), “Leaders guided the activity to promote IG interaction” (65.2%), and “Adaptations to equipment were made” (34.8%). Program leaders and observers reached agreement of 80% to 99% on the implementation of all other IG best practices.

Factors Influencing Best Practice Implementation

Narrative comments on the Best Practices Checklist completed by IG program leaders provided insight to their experiences implementing the 14 best practices. We identified two main themes from these responses that were found to influence implementation: (a) grouping of participants and (b) the benefits of repeating activities.

Grouping Participants

Leaders grouped IG partners (child participants with older adult participants) based on the number of participants in attendance and their ability to pair partners and to match partners based on participants’ interests. Engaging participants in programming was easier when the number of older adults approximated that of the children. Multiple program leader comments reflected this, including “IG works better when we have more adults to interact with children.” When activities called for participants to work in IG pairs, program leaders noted the benefits: “We liked that there just happened to be an equal number of seniors and children present, so no one was doubled up or left out,” and “We are definitely noticing more interaction between the paired participants.” Program leaders further described intentionality in pairing. For instance, one program leader stated, “[We ensured] one girl was paired with a female senior since she had previously shown reluctance to interact with a man,” indicating that leaders took into consideration the needs and preferences of participants when deciding how to appropriately group them.

Repeating Activities

Program leaders also identified the value of repeating specific activities (e.g., games, songs), which may have influenced their implementation of best practices over time. For example, one leader explained, “We admittedly over-facilitated this [activity]. It was our first true, small-group activity, and we did more talking and suggesting than we needed to. Looking back, we could have just let the [participants] explore more on their own.” This same leader noted for a different activity, “We did the same activity a week earlier with different participants. We felt we did better this time to encourage interaction,” suggesting that program leaders’ best practice familiarity improves over time with repetition of activities.

Discussion

The IG best practices evaluated in this preliminary study were developed and tested over several years in controlled, community-based experiments (Jarrott et al., 2019); the current study represents the first examination of their implementation in a nonexperimental community-based setting. The high rates of best practice implementation indicate that the practices translate well in a community setting and that IG leaders can implement evidence-informed IG practices after participating in a multifaceted training. Though the high rates of best practice implementation are promising, this study illuminates gaps in best practice implementation that may be ameliorated through tailored implementation strategies designed to support the uptake of IG best practices in the community setting.

Best Practice Implementation

Refinement of Multifaceted Training

Our findings point to several opportunities to improve IG best practice training and the tools designed to measure the implementation of best practices. First, some best practices may need to be more clearly operationalized during IG professional preparation. Items such as “Leader guided the activity to promote IG interaction,” for example, can be achieved in multiple ways; leaders could ask IG partners to share a story with each other or give directions for one partner to help the other. This and other best practices with lower rates of program leader/trained observer agreement may need to be more narrowly defined with clear criteria that illustrate the presence or absence of the best practice.

Additionally, the lack of variability for some best practices (e.g., 100% of activities were coded as age appropriate for child participants) suggests that IG program leaders may not need training on their implementation because leaders are familiar with these concepts due to their professional backgrounds (e.g., child development). Instead, best practice trainings could be structured to emphasize and clarify the best practices that were implemented with less consistency (e.g., “Adaptations to equipment were made”). The backgrounds and prior experiences of program leaders will likely influence the manner in which we structure future IG professional preparation; we recognize the need for follow-up research that examines the implementation of IG best practices by program leaders with greater diversity in professional backgrounds (e.g., geriatrics, nursing, social work). One potential method to address this issue includes the completion of a needs assessment with IG program leaders prior to conducting multifaceted trainings. Leaders in the field of implementation science have endorsed the importance of needs assessments, which can then inform the selection and development of implementation strategies (Powell et al., 2015; Powell et al., 2019), such as a multifaceted training.

Based on our qualitative data, we also plan for future best practice trainings to include case examples depicting options for grouping participants together. In community-based settings, attendance at events, such as IG program activities, can be unpredictable, requiring program leaders to be creative in their selection of participants for group activities. Sharing examples of successful grouping options during trainings sessions may prepare program leaders to handle grouping challenges. Furthermore, our multifaceted training approach could be enhanced with the addition of short videos illustrating best practices implementation. As an exemplar, the We Inspire Smart Eating (WISE; Whiteside-Mansell & Swindle, 2017) complements its curricular training with 1- to 2-minute videos that a trainer can show to teachers in real-time when observing and coaching them how to implement WISE programming. Such quick and accessible strategies can reinforce concepts during initial training and can be revisited when leaders are implementing programming in the field. Although we intentionally embedded numerous strategies into our multifaceted training approach to improve its effectiveness, our training could be further enhanced with “booster” or live coaching once program leaders have begun to implement best practices in the community.

Adaptation to the Best Practices Checklist

Modifications to response options on the Best Practices Checklist may improve the quality of the scale used by program leaders and trained observers. Intended to keep the process simple for busy program leaders, the Best Practices Checklist allowed for program leaders to only indicate “yes” or “no” that a practice had been implemented. For some best practices, leaders commented that they were uncertain how to use the dichotomous options to represent an entire activity. Coding might be more descriptive with additional response options, such as a 3-point Likert-type scale where 0 = best practice was not implemented, 1 = best practice implemented for less than half of the activity, and 2 = best practice implemented for half or more of the activity. This could improve leader–observer agreement but might also increase burden for the respondents to estimate duration more precisely.

Implications for Intergenerational Practice and Research

Intergenerational Practice

Beyond modifications to the Best Practices Checklist, or associated training materials that might improve best practice implementation, we acknowledge that program leaders may have comprehended best practices fully but been unable to implement them because they faced barriers outside their control. For example, adapting space to reduce distractions was not always feasible in community spaces (i.e., a church). Expectations of participants and staffing regulations can also affect program leaders’ capacity to implement best practices. Program leaders at preschool Site 2 were dependent on older adult community volunteers and were not always able to pair one older adult with one youth participant. Due to state regulations, program leaders needed to adhere to a 6:1 ratio of children to staff. Thus, they could not bring fewer children to the IG programming to match the number of volunteers present. These are common barriers experienced by community-based organizations and demonstrate the unique challenges of implementing evidence-based programming in the community context (Bunger & Lengnick-Hall, 2019; Jarrott et al., 2019). As a solution to these barriers, IG program leaders and administrators from community-based organizations need to engage in selecting relevant implementation strategies that can facilitate the use of IG best practices while still upholding licensing regulations.

Intergenerational Research

Modifying the Best Practices Checklist instrument to reflect data gathered in the current study and, subsequently, updating the multifaceted training materials could improve best practices implementation rates. To assess program leaders’ comprehension of the best practices, future research could use a pretest–posttest design before and after initial training and again after several months of IG programming to determine the sustainability of best practice implementation. Based on the findings from the current study, additional research opportunities lie in examining which components (e.g., strategies) of the multifaceted training approach were most effective for supporting the implementation of best practices. Moreover, studies examining the effectiveness of implementation strategies should simultaneously collect data that represent participant-level outcomes. These outcomes can further validate the benefit of IG programs on socioemotional health, engagement, and quality of life for youth and older adults alike.

Limitations

The current preliminary study was unique in its examination of professionals’ use of IG best practices in a community-based setting. Although this study adds valuable contributions to the IG programming literature, it is not without limitations. First, we examined the implementation of best practices using the Best Practices Checklist, which is an established tool that has been previously used in IG research (Jarrott et al., 2008; Weaver et al., 2019). However, we acknowledge that the Best Practices Checklist is a self-report tool that may be susceptible to social desirability bias, though we did attempt to account for this bias by also examining implementation of best practices coded by trained observers through video recordings of IG program sessions. Additionally, when completing the Best Practices Checklist, program leaders had the option to write narrative comments representing their reflections of the sessions and factors influencing best practices implementation. These comments offered some insight into the challenges and successes of implementing best practices, but more robust data could have been gathered through qualitative interviews or focus groups designed to understand factors influencing implementation.

Conclusion

Findings from this preliminary study indicate that many IG best practices derived from controlled, community-based experiments can be adopted by IG program leaders who coordinate IG programming in community-based settings. Implementation of these best practices may be enhanced through the delivery of a multifaceted training approach delivered by IG experts. Additionally, this study highlights the need for researchers to investigate the complexity of individual best practices, revisions to training materials, and effective strategies to support the sustained implementation of IG best practices in the community setting. Findings highlight the potential value of adopting a model of IG best practice training and implementation and point to subsequent research of their impact on participant outcomes.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hpp-10.1177_1524839921994072 – Supplemental material for Implementing Intergenerational Best Practices in Community-Based Settings: A Preliminary Study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpp-10.1177_1524839921994072 for Implementing Intergenerational Best Practices in Community-Based Settings: A Preliminary Study by Lisa A. Juckett, Shannon E. Jarrott, Jill Juris Naar, Rachel M. Scrivano and Alicia C. Bunger in Health Promotion Practice

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Countryside Children’s Day Care Center of Caroline County and the Family Focus and Innovative Senior Champions Programs of James City County Virginia for their support of Project TRIP. Project TRIP: Transforming Relationships through Intergenerational Programs is a USDA CYFAR Sustainable Community Project (#2011-41520-30639).

ORCID iD

Lisa A. Juckett

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available at .

References

Alant

Geyer

Verde

(2015). Developing empathetic skills among teachers and learners in high schools in Tshwane: An inter-generational approach involving people with dementia. Perspectives in Education, 33(3), 141–158.

Anderson

Fast

Keating

Eales

Chivers

Barnet

(2017). Translating knowledge: Promoting health through intergenerational community arts programming. Health Promotion Practice, 18(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915625037

Beidas

R. S.

Edmunds

J. M.

Marcus

S. C.

Kendall

P. C.

(2012). Training and consultation to promote implementation of an empirically supported treatment: A randomized trial. Psychiatric Services, 63(7), 660–665. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100401

Bunger

A. C.

Lengnick-Hall

(2019). Implementation science and human service organizations research: Opportunities and challenges for building on complementary strengths. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 43(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2019.1666765

Fried

L. P.

Carlson

M. C.

McGill

Seeman

Xue

Q.-L.

Frick

Tan

Tanner

E. K.

Barron

Frangakis

Piferi

Martinez

Gruenewald

Martin

B. K.

Berry-Vaughn

Stewart

Dickersin

Willging

P. R.

Rebok

G. W.

(2013). Experience Corps: A dual trial to promote the health of older adults and children’s academic success. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 36(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.05.003

Generations United. (2020). Intergenerational programs & spaces. https://www.gu.org/explore-our-topics/intergenerational-programs-spaces/

Gerardo

Rodrigues

Marques

Cunha

Mendonça

Pinto

É.

Grilo

(2019). SeniorTec: Senior tutorial program to teach technologies to students. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17(4), 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2019.1653144

Gruenewald

T. L.

Tanner

E. K.

Fried

L. P.

Carlson

M. C.

Xue

Q.-L.

Parisi

J. M.

Rebok

G. W.

Yarnell

L. M.

Seeman

T. E.

(2016). The Baltimore Experience Corps trial: Enhancing generativity via intergenerational activity engagement in later life. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 71(4), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv005

Gualano

M. R.

Voglino

Bert

Thomas

Camussi

Siliquini

(2018). The impact of intergenerational programs on children and older adults: A review. International Psychogeriatrics, 30(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021700182X

10.

Jarrott

S. E.

(2019). Intergenerational brief shared site survey report. https://www.gu.org/app/uploads/2019/01/Intergenerational-Brief-Shared-Site-Survey-Report.pdf

11.

Jarrott

S. E.

Morris

M. M.

Burnett

A. J.

Stauffer

Stremmel

A. S.

Gigliotti

C. M.

(2011). Creating community capacity at a shared site intergenerational program: “Like a barefoot climb up a mountain.” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(4), 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2011.619925

12.

Jarrott

S. E.

Smith

C. L.

Weintraub

A. P. C.

(2008). Development of a standardized tool for intergenerational programming: The Intergenerational Observation Scale. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6(4), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770802474595

13.

Jarrott

S. E.

Stremmel

A. J.

Naar

J. J.

(2019). Practice that transforms intergenerational programs: A model of theory- and evidence informed principles. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17(4), 488–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2019.1579154

14.

Nadeem

Gleacher

Beidas

R. S.

(2013). Consultation as an implementation strategy for evidence-based practices across multiple contexts: Unpacking the black box. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 40(6), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0502-8

15.

Powell

B. J.

Fernandez

M. E.

Williams

N. J.

Aarons

G. A.

Beidas

R. S.

Lewis

C. C.

McHugh

S. M.

Weiner

B. J.

(2019). Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: A research agenda. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003

16.

Powell

B. J.

Waltz

T. J.

Chinman

M. J.

Damschroder

L. J.

Smith

J. L.

Matthieu

M. M.

Proctor

E. K.

Kirchner

J. E.

(2015). A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science, 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1

17.

Proctor

Silmere

Raghavan

Hovmand

Aarons

Bunger

Griffey

Hensley

(2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

18.

Roodin

Brown

L. H.

Shedlock

(2013). Intergenerational service-learning: A review of recent literature and directions for the future. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 34(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2012.755624

19.

Saldana

(2009). The coding manual for qualitative research: A review. Sage.

20.

Warburton

(2014). Intergenerational programs and the promotion of generativity. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(2), 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2014.899453

21.

Weaver

R. H.

Naar

J. J.

Jarrott

S. E.

(2019). Using contact theory to assess staff perspectives on training initiatives of an intergenerational programming intervention. The Gerontologist, 59(4), 770–779. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx194

22.

Whiteside-Mansell

Swindle

T. M.

(2017). Together we inspire smart eating: A preschool WISE curriculum for obesity prevention in low-income families. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 49(9), 789–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2017.05.345

23.

Zucchero

R. A.

Gibson

J. E.

(2019). A comparison of intergenerational service-learning and traditional pedagogy among undergraduate psychology students. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718823970

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB