1
|
Nsobundu C, Nmadu YW, Wagle NS, Foster MJ, McKyer ELJ, Sherman L, Ory MG, Burdine J(JN. Process Evaluations of Diabetes Self-Management Programs: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Am J Health Promot 2024; 38:1048-1067. [PMID: 38648265 PMCID: PMC11348640 DOI: 10.1177/08901171241238554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/25/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review of process evaluations (PEs) of diabetes self-management programs (DSMPs). DATA SOURCE An electronic search using Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ensco), Academic Search (Ebsco), and APA PsycInfo (Ebsco). STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA Peer-reviewed, empirical quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method studies were included if they (1) were a traditional, group-based DSMP, (2) involved adults at least 18 years with T1DM or T2DM, (3) were a stand-alone or embedded PE, and (4) published in English. DATA EXTRACTION The following process evaluation outcomes were extracted: fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, reach, recruitment, retention, and context. Additional items were extracted, (eg, process evaluation type, data collection methods; theories; frameworks or conceptual models used to guide the process evaluation, and etc). DATA SYNTHESIS Due to heterogeneity across studies, studies were synthesized qualitatively (narratively). RESULTS Sixty-eight studies (k) in 78 articles (n) (k = 68; n = 78) were included. Most were mixed methods of low quality. Studies were typically integrated into outcome evaluations vs being stand-alone, lacked theoretical approaches to guide them, and incorporated limited outcomes such as dose received, reach, and retention. CONCLUSION Future research should 1) implement stand-alone theoretically grounded PE studies and 2) provide a shared understanding of standardized guidelines to conduct PEs. This will allow public health practitioners and researchers to assess and compare the quality of different programs to be implemented.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chinelo Nsobundu
- Center for Community Health & Aging, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
- School of Medicine, St George’s University, St George’s, Grenada
| | - Yeka W. Nmadu
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine- Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nikita Sandeep Wagle
- Population Informatics Lab, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| | - Margaret J. Foster
- Department of Medical Education, Texas A&M College of Medicine, College Station, TX, USA
| | - Ellisa Lisako Jones McKyer
- Vice Dean Faculty Affairs & Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Alice L. Walton School of Medicine, Bentonville, AR, USA
| | - Ledric Sherman
- Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| | - Marcia G. Ory
- Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| | - James (Jim) N. Burdine
- Department of Health Behavior, Director of the Center for Community Health & Aging, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
O' Donoghue M, Boland P, Taylor S, Hennessy E, Murphy E, Leahy S, McManus J, Lisiecka D, Purtill H, Galvin R, Hayes S. OptiCogs: feasibility of a multicomponent intervention to rehabilitate people with cognitive impairment post-stroke. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2023; 9:178. [PMID: 37853485 PMCID: PMC10583340 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-023-01300-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2022] [Accepted: 04/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Despite the prevalence and associated burden of cognitive impairment post-stroke, there is uncertainty regarding optimal cognitive rehabilitation for people post-stroke. This study aimed to assess whether a multicomponent intervention, called OptiCogs, is feasible, acceptable, and safe for people with cognitive impairment post-stroke. A secondary aim was to explore changes in cognitive function, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, and occupational performance, from pre-intervention to post-intervention. METHODS A feasibility study was conducted where people post-stroke with cognitive impairment enrolled in a 6-week multicomponent intervention. The primary outcomes recorded included response rate, recruitment rate, retention rate, adherence to the intervention protocol, adverse events, and acceptability of the intervention to people post-stroke. Secondary outcomes included (i) change in cognitive functioning using the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III, (ii) fatigue using the Fatigue Severity scale, (iii) quality of life using the Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale (iv) physical function using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system, and (v) patient-reported occupational performance using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension reporting guidelines were followed, for pilot and feasibility studies, to standardize the conduct and reporting of this study. RESULTS The response rate was 10.9%. Nine eligible participants were enrolled during the 4-month recruitment period, with eight participants completing the entire 6-week intervention, as well as the pre- and post-intervention outcome measures. There were no reported adverse events. Participants were satisfied with the intervention and found it acceptable overall. Results of the secondary outcomes were promising for cognitive function (ACE III, pre: 63.3 ± 23.9 to post: 69 ± 24.6), fatigue (FSS, pre: 52.5 ± 7.3 to post: 45.6 ± 7.2), quality of life (SSQoL, pre: 131.0 ± 26.3 to post: 169.9 ± 15.3), physical function (PROMIS-PF, pre: 15.5 ± 6.3 to post: 15.8 ± 5.3), and occupational performance (COPM performance, pre: 9.3 ± 2.3 to post: 22.9 ± 4.2) and COPM satisfaction, pre: 9.9 ± 2.1 to post: 22.7 ± 3.5). CONCLUSION Preliminary results suggest low-modest recruitment and high retention rates for the OptiCogs intervention. Changes in cognitive function, fatigue, quality of life, and self-reported occupational performance show improvement from pre- to post-intervention. These potential benefits require further testing in a larger pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT05414539.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mairéad O' Donoghue
- School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland.
| | - Pauline Boland
- School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
| | - Sinead Taylor
- Acute Stroke and Neurology Services, UL Hospitals Group, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Edel Hennessy
- Early Supported Discharge, UL Hospitals Group, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Eva Murphy
- Early Supported Discharge, UL Hospitals Group, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Siobhan Leahy
- Department of Sport, Exercise and Nutrition, School of Science and Computing, Mayo Institute of Technology, Dublin Road, GalwayGalway, Ireland
| | - John McManus
- Acute Stroke and Neurology Services, UL Hospitals Group, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Dominika Lisiecka
- Department of Nursing and Healthcare Sciences, School of Health and Social Sciences, Munster Technological University Kerry Campus, Kerry, Ireland
| | - Helen Purtill
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
| | - Rose Galvin
- School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
| | - Sara Hayes
- School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Meusel LA, Colella B, Ruttan L, Tartaglia MC, Green R. Preliminary efficacy and predictors of response to a remotely-delivered symptom self-management program for persistent symptoms after concussion. Brain Inj 2023; 37:1245-1252. [PMID: 37452884 DOI: 10.1080/02699052.2023.2230873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2022] [Revised: 06/07/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND More than a quarter of adults with concussion endure prolonged symptoms of >3 months. We developed the Concussion Education Self-Management program to help people manage persisting symptoms. Here, we assess feasibility, preliminary efficacy, and correlates of response. METHODS N = 80 adults participated in the program; ages ranged from 18 to 65 years and time post-injury ranged from 6 months to 18 years. Weekly sessions, delivered remotely and in groups, comprised education and strategies for management of cognitive, emotional, and physical symptoms. Primary outcome: Confidence to self-manage symptoms. Secondary outcomes: Quality of life; mood/anxiety/stress. Predictors of response: Self-reported cognitive, emotional and physical symptoms at intake. RESULTS Pre- to post-program improvements were observed in confidence to self-manage, p < 0.03; quality of life, p < 0.001; depression, p < 0.001; anxiety, p < 0.001; and stress, p < 0.001. Considering confidence to self-manage, those with fewer cognitive and physical symptoms benefitted more (p's < 0.0005 and p < 0.01, respectively). DISCUSSION This program shows promise for improving self-management of prolonged symptoms. Those with high symptom burden may need extra sessions to benefit. This is a cost-effective and scalable program that can reach people regardless of geographic location or impediments to travel.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liesel-Ann Meusel
- Toronto Rehab, University Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Brenda Colella
- Toronto Rehab, University Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Lesley Ruttan
- Toronto Rehab, University Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Robin Green
- Toronto Rehab, University Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
- Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chu J, Glinsky JV, Liu H, Ben M, Spooren AI, Roberts S, Chen LW, Di Natal F, Tamburella F, Jørgensen V, Gollan EJ, Agostinello J, van Laake-Geelen C, Lincoln C, van der Lede J, Stolwijk JM, Bell C, Paddison S, Rainey D, Scivoletto G, Oostra KM, Jan S, Sherrington C, Harvey LA. Early and Intensive Motor Training for people with spinal cord injuries (the SCI-MT Trial): protocol of the process evaluation. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e072219. [PMID: 37643854 PMCID: PMC10465915 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/07/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION People with spinal cord injury receive physical rehabilitation to promote neurological recovery. Physical rehabilitation commences as soon as possible when a person is medically stable. One key component of physical rehabilitation is motor training. There is initial evidence to suggest that motor training can enhance neurological recovery if it is provided soon after injury and in a high dosage. The Early and Intensive Motor Training Trial is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine whether 10 weeks of intensive motor training enhances neurological recovery for people with spinal cord injury. This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will recruit 220 participants from 15 spinal injury units in Australia, Scotland, Italy, Norway, England, Belgium and the Netherlands. This protocol paper describes the process evaluation that will run alongside the Early and Intensive Motor Training Trial. This process evaluation will help to explain the trial results and explore the potential facilitators and barriers to the possible future rollout of the trial intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The UK Medical Research Council process evaluation framework and the Implementation Research Logic Model will be used to explain the trial outcomes and inform future implementation. Key components of the context, implementation and mechanism of impact, as well as the essential elements of the intervention and outcomes, will be identified and analysed. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected and triangulated with the results of the Early and Intensive Motor Training Trial to strengthen the findings of this process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval for the Early and Intensive Motor Training Trial and process evaluation has been obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the Northern Sydney Local Health District (New South Wales) in Australia (project identifier: 2020/ETH02540). All participants are required to provide written consent after being informed about the trial and the process evaluation. The results of this process evaluation will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12621000091808); Universal Trial Number (U1111-1264-1689).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jackie Chu
- Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Joanne V Glinsky
- Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Hueiming Liu
- The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Marsha Ben
- Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Sharon Roberts
- Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Lydia W Chen
- Physiotherapy Department, Roayl North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Fernanda Di Natal
- Physiotherapy Department, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Vivien Jørgensen
- Research Department, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Nesodden, Norway
| | - Emilie J Gollan
- Physiotherapy Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
| | - Jacqui Agostinello
- Physiotherapy Department, Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre, Kew, Victoria, Australia
| | - Charlotte van Laake-Geelen
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Adelante Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands
| | - Claire Lincoln
- Physiotherapy Department, Queen Elizabeth National Spinal Injuries Unit, Glasgow, Scotland
| | - Jessica van der Lede
- Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke M Stolwijk
- Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Chris Bell
- Physiotherapy Department, Repat Health Precinct, Daw Park, South Australia, Australia
| | - Sue Paddison
- London Spinal Cord Injury Centre, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Trust, Stanmore, UK
| | - Donna Rainey
- Spinal Injury Unit, Royal Rehab, Ryde, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Kristine M Oostra
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Stephen Jan
- The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Catherine Sherrington
- Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Lisa A Harvey
- Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sánchez de Ribera O, Trajtenberg N, Martínez-Catena A, Redondo-Illescas S. Implementation of a Treatment Program for Individuals Imprisoned for Sex Offenses in Uruguay: Achievements, Problems and Challenges. SEXUAL ABUSE : A JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND TREATMENT 2023; 35:503-533. [PMID: 36213940 DOI: 10.1177/10790632221127976] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
Treatment for individuals convicted of sex offenses has substantially improved in developed countries in recent decades, providing practitioners with an extensive literature to guide the implementation of effective programs to reduce sexual reoffending. Nevertheless, sexual offending rehabilitation is still in its infancy in Latin American countries such as Uruguay, so little is known about the transference and implementation of evidence-based programs. The current study examines the strengths, barriers, and challenges of implementing a sex offenses treatment program in Uruguay. The findings suggest some achievements of the program, but also several problems with implementation. Some problems are universal among different countries (e.g., scarce resources and facilities, insufficiently trained staff, and unexpected changes in the organization), but others were particularly relevant in the Uruguayan context (e.g., government policy alien to a rehabilitation approach, lack of appropriate prison facilities, lack of training for therapists from a cognitive-behavioral perspective). All these difficulties must be anticipated and solved for successful generalizability of rehabilitation programs to different correctional systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olga Sánchez de Ribera
- School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
- Institute of Health, Faculty of Psychology, Republic University (UDELAR), Montevideo, Uruguay
| | - Nicolás Trajtenberg
- School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
- School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
French C, Dowrick A, Fudge N, Pinnock H, Taylor SJC. What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework. BMC Med Res Methodol 2022; 22:302. [PMID: 36434520 PMCID: PMC9700891 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01767-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2022] [Accepted: 10/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Process evaluations aim to understand how complex interventions bring about outcomes by examining intervention mechanisms, implementation, and context. While much attention has been paid to the methodology of process evaluations in health research, the value of process evaluations has received less critical attention. We aimed to unpack how value is conceptualised in process evaluations by identifying and critically analysing 1) how process evaluations may create value and 2) what kind of value they may create. METHODS We systematically searched for and identified published literature on process evaluation, including guidance, opinion pieces, primary research, reviews, and discussion of methodological and practical issues. We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis and developed a practical planning framework. RESULTS We identified and included 147 literature items. From these we determined three ways in which process evaluations may create value or negative consequences: 1) through the socio-technical processes of 'doing' the process evaluation, 2) through the features/qualities of process evaluation knowledge, and 3) through using process evaluation knowledge. We identified 15 value themes. We also found that value varies according to the characteristics of individual process evaluations, and is subjective and context dependent. CONCLUSION The concept of value in process evaluations is complex and multi-faceted. Stakeholders in different contexts may have very different expectations of process evaluations and the value that can and should be obtained from them. We propose a planning framework to support an open and transparent process to plan and create value from process evaluations and negotiate trade-offs. This will support the development of joint solutions and, ultimately, generate more value from process evaluations to all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline French
- grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK
| | - Anna Dowrick
- grid.4991.50000 0004 1936 8948Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GC UK
| | - Nina Fudge
- grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK
| | - Hilary Pinnock
- grid.4305.20000 0004 1936 7988Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Doorway 3, Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK
| | - Stephanie J. C. Taylor
- grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lockwood I, Walker RM, Latimer S, Chaboyer W, Cooke M, Gillespie BM. Process evaluations undertaken alongside randomised controlled trials in the hospital setting: A scoping review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2022; 26:100894. [PMID: 36684693 PMCID: PMC9846456 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100894] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Revised: 11/09/2021] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Background There is increasing recognition of the importance of undertaking process evaluations alongside implementation of health interventions by examining mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. However, a comprehensive synthesis of process evaluations undertaken alongside clinical trials in hospital settings is lacking. We undertook a scoping review to address this gap. Methods This review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping studies. Studies were identified using four databases; Ovid Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Two authors independently screened all titles and available abstracts, with a third author available to adjudicate. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described a process evaluation undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial in the hospital setting. Data were abstracted by one author and checked by two others and analysed both descriptively and using inductive content analysis. Results Data were extracted from 30 articles reporting on 15 trials, most of which were cluster randomised trials (c-RTs) (n = 12). The most common data collection methods used in process evaluations were interviews, questionnaires or surveys, and records or logs. Data analysis revealed three themes relative to how authors: use process data to interpret, understand and explain trial outcomes; evaluate responses to the intervention; and consider the implementation context. Conclusions Findings from this review demonstrate the complex nature of intervention implementation in the hospital setting. Overall, there is need for standardised reporting of process evaluations and more explicit descriptions of how authors use frameworks to guide their evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ishtar Lockwood
- NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia,School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia
| | - Rachel M. Walker
- NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia,School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia,Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
| | - Sharon Latimer
- NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia,School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia,Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia,Corresponding author. Building L05, Room 3.44, Griffith University, Logan, Queensland, 4131, Australia.
| | - Wendy Chaboyer
- NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia,School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia
| | - Marie Cooke
- NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia,School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia
| | - Brigid M. Gillespie
- NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia,School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia,Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Leavy B, Joseph C, Kwak L, Franzén E. Implementation of highly challenging balance training for Parkinson's disease in clinical practice: a process evaluation. BMC Geriatr 2021; 21:96. [PMID: 33526031 PMCID: PMC7852138 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-021-02031-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 01/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Process evaluations provide contextual insight into the way in which interventions are delivered. This information is essential when designing strategies to implement programs into wider clinical practice. We performed a process evaluation of the HiBalance effectiveness trial investigating the effects of a 10-week of highly challenging and progressive balance training for mild-moderate Parkinson’s disease (PD). Study aims were to investigate i) the quality and quantity of intervention delivery and ii) barriers and facilitators for implementation. Methods Process outcomes included; Fidelity; Dose (delivered and received) Recruitment and Reach. Investigation of barriers and facilitators was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Program delivery was assessed across four neurological rehabilitation sites during a two-year period. Data collection was mixed-methods in nature and quantitative and qualitative data were merged during the analysis phase. Results Thirteen program trainers delivered the intervention to 12 separate groups during 119 training sessions. Trainer fidelity to program core components was very high in 104 (87%) of the sessions. Participant responsiveness to the core components was generally high, although adherence to the home exercise program was low (50%). No significant context-specific differences were observed across sites in terms of fidelity, dose delivered/ received or participant characteristics, despite varying recruitment methods. Facilitators to program delivery were; PD-specificity, high training frequency and professional autonomy. Perceived barriers included; cognitive impairment, absent reactional balance among participants, as well a heterogeneous group in relation to balance capacity. Conclusion These findings provide corroborating evidence for outcome evaluation results and valuable information for the further adaptation and implementation of this program. Important lessons can also be learned for researchers and clinicians planning to implement challenging exercise training programs for people with mild-moderate PD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02727478, registered 30 march, 2016 − Retrospectively registered. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02031-1.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Breiffni Leavy
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. .,The Stockholm Sjukhem Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Conran Joseph
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.,Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Lydia Kwak
- Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for worker health, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Erika Franzén
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Physiotherapy, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.,The Stockholm Sjukhem Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden.,Function Area Occupational therapy & Physiotherapy, Allied Health Professionals Function, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
French C, Pinnock H, Forbes G, Skene I, Taylor SJC. Process evaluation within pragmatic randomised controlled trials: what is it, why is it done, and can we find it?-a systematic review. Trials 2020; 21:916. [PMID: 33168067 PMCID: PMC7650157 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04762-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2020] [Accepted: 09/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Process evaluations are increasingly conducted within pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health services interventions and provide vital information to enhance understanding of RCT findings. However, issues pertaining to process evaluation in this specific context have been little discussed. We aimed to describe the frequency, characteristics, labelling, value, practical conduct issues, and accessibility of published process evaluations within pragmatic RCTs in health services research. METHODS We used a 2-phase systematic search process to (1) identify an index sample of journal articles reporting primary outcome results of pragmatic RCTs published in 2015 and then (2) identify all associated publications. We used an operational definition of process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework to identify both process evaluations reported separately and process data reported in the trial results papers. We extracted and analysed quantitative and qualitative data to answer review objectives. RESULTS From an index sample of 31 pragmatic RCTs, we identified 17 separate process evaluation studies. These had varied characteristics and only three were labelled 'process evaluation'. Each of the 31 trial results papers also reported process data, with a median of five different process evaluation components per trial. Reported barriers and facilitators related to real-world collection of process data, recruitment of participants to process evaluations, and health services research regulations. We synthesised a wide range of reported benefits of process evaluations to interventions, trials, and wider knowledge. Visibility was often poor, with 13/17 process evaluations not mentioned in the trial results paper and 12/16 process evaluation journal articles not appearing in the trial registry. CONCLUSIONS In our sample of reviewed pragmatic RCTs, the meaning of the label 'process evaluation' appears uncertain, and the scope and significance of the term warrant further research and clarification. Although there were many ways in which the process evaluations added value, they often had poor visibility. Our findings suggest approaches that could enhance the planning and utility of process evaluations in the context of pragmatic RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION Not applicable for PROSPERO registration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline French
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK.
| | - Hilary Pinnock
- Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Doorway 3, Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK
| | - Gordon Forbes
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), Kings College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK
| | - Imogen Skene
- Emergency Department, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel, London, E1 1FR, UK
| | - Stephanie J C Taylor
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Comber L, Peterson E, O'Malley N, Galvin R, Finlayson M, Coote S. Development of the Better Balance Program for People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Complex Fall-Prevention Intervention. Int J MS Care 2020; 23:119-127. [PMID: 34177384 DOI: 10.7224/1537-2073.2019-105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Background Approximately 56% of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) will fall in any 3-month period, with the potential for physical, psychological, and social consequences. Fall-prevention research for people with MS is in its infancy, with a timely need to develop theory-based interventions that reflect the complexity of falls. The clear articulation of the development of any complex intervention is paramount to its future evaluation, usability, and effectiveness. Our aim was to describe how the development of Better Balance, a complex multicomponent fall-prevention intervention for people with MS, was guided by the Medical Research Council framework for the development of complex interventions. Methods Sources of information included existing literature, original research, clinician interviews, and views of people with MS. These sources were synthesized and refined through an iterative process of intervention development involving researchers, clinicians, and people with MS. Results The resulting intervention is outlined through a variety of key tasks supplementing the original Medical Research Council framework. Use of this framework resulted in a theoretically based and user-informed complex intervention designed to address the physiological, personal, and behavioral risk factors associated with falls in people with MS. Conclusions The articulation of the systematic process used to develop Better Balance will inform the future evaluation and usability of the intervention.
Collapse
|
11
|
Liu H, Mohammed A, Shanthosh J, News M, Laba TL, Hackett ML, Peiris D, Jan S. Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e025127. [PMID: 31391188 PMCID: PMC6687007 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators. DESIGN Systematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide. DATA SOURCES Academic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance. RESULTS 69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation. CONCLUSION Greater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42016035572.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hueiming Liu
- University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Alim Mohammed
- The George Institute for Global Health, Hyderabad, India
| | - Janani Shanthosh
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Madeline News
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Tracey-Lea Laba
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Maree L Hackett
- University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David Peiris
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephen Jan
- University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Baxter SK, Johnson M, Clowes M, O’Brien D, Norman P, Stavroulakis T, Bianchi S, Elliott M, McDermott C, Hobson E. Optimizing the noninvasive ventilation pathway for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease: a systematic review. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener 2019; 20:461-472. [DOI: 10.1080/21678421.2019.1627372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Stephen Bianchi
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK, and
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ribeiro DC, Abbott JH, Sharma S, Lamb SE. Process evaluation of complex interventions tested in randomised controlled trials in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e028160. [PMID: 31110107 PMCID: PMC6530329 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2018] [Revised: 02/27/2019] [Accepted: 04/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The effectiveness of complex interventions for the management of musculoskeletal disorders has been estimated in many randomised clinical trials (RCTs). These trials inform which interventions are the most effective, however they do not always inform how an intervention achieved its clinical outcomes, nor how and what elements of an intervention were delivered to patients. Such information is useful for translating findings into clinical practice. A few process evaluation studies have been conducted alongside RCTs and a variety of methods have been used. To gain a better understanding of current practices of process evaluation in RCTs in musculoskeletal disorders, this systematic review is designed to answer the following research question: How are process evaluation of complex interventions tested in RCTs in musculoskeletal disorders being conducted? METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will systematically search seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane database) from the date of inception to August 2018 for studies on process evaluation of RCTs on non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of musculoskeletal disorders. We will include qualitative and quantitative studies conducted alongside RCTs, reported with the RCTs or separate studies that assessed interventions for musculoskeletal disorders. Two reviewers will screen abstracts and apply prespecified inclusion criteria to identify relevant studies, extract the data and assess the risk of bias within included studies. We will follow recommendations from the 'Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series' when assessing methodological strengths and limitations of included studies. We will use a narrative synthesis to describe findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval is not required as this review will not collect original data. Findings from this systematic review will be presented at a scientific conference and published in a peer reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42018109600.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel C Ribeiro
- School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago Division of Health Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | - J Haxby Abbott
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago Division of Health Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | - Saurab Sharma
- Department of Physiotherapy, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Bagmati, Nepal
- Orthopedic Surgery Section, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago Dunedin School of Medicine, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand
| | - Sarah E Lamb
- Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Masterson-Algar P, Burton CR, Rycroft-Malone J. The generation of consensus guidelines for carrying out process evaluations in rehabilitation research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18:180. [PMID: 30594133 PMCID: PMC6311071 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0647-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2018] [Accepted: 12/17/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although in recent years there has been a strong increase in published research on theories (e.g. realist evaluation, normalization process theory) driving and guiding process evaluations of complex interventions, there is limited guidance to help rehabilitation researchers design and carry out process evaluations. This can lead to the risk of process evaluations being unsystematic. This paper reports on the development of new consensus guidelines that address the specific challenges of conducting process evaluations alongside clinical trials of rehabilitation interventions. METHODS A formal consensus process was carried out based on a modified nominal group technique, which comprised two phases. Phase I was informed by the findings of a systematic review, and included a nominal group meeting with an expert panel of participants to rate and discuss the proposed statements. Phase II was an in depth semi-structured telephone interviews with expert panel participants in order to further discuss the structure and contents of the revised guidelines. Frequency of rating responses to each statement was calculated and thematic analysis was carried out on all qualitative data. RESULTS The guidelines for carrying out process evaluations within complex intervention rehabilitation research were produced by combining findings from Phase I and Phase II. The consensus guidelines include recommendations that are grouped in seven sections. These sections are theoretical work, design and methods, context, recruitment and retention, intervention staff, delivery of the intervention and results. These sections represent different aspects or stages of the evaluation process. CONCLUSION The consensus guidelines here presented can play a role at assisting rehabilitation researchers at the time of designing and conducting process evaluations alongside trials of complex interventions. The guidelines break new ground in terms of concepts and theory and works towards a consensus in regards to how rehabilitation researchers should go about carrying out process evaluations and how this evaluation should be linked into the proposed trials. These guidelines may be used, adapted and tested by rehabilitation researchers depending on the research stage or study design (e.g. feasibility trial, pilot trial, etc.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P. Masterson-Algar
- Bangor Institute for Health & Medical Research, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Ffriddoedd Road, Bangor, UK
| | - C. R. Burton
- Bangor Institute for Health & Medical Research, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Ffriddoedd Road, Bangor, UK
| | - J. Rycroft-Malone
- Bangor Institute for Health & Medical Research, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Ffriddoedd Road, Bangor, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
An EEG Tool for Monitoring Patient Engagement during Stroke Rehabilitation: A Feasibility Study. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2017; 2017:9071568. [PMID: 29147661 PMCID: PMC5632877 DOI: 10.1155/2017/9071568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2017] [Accepted: 08/13/2017] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Objective Patient engagement is of major significance in neural rehabilitation. We developed a real-time EEG marker for attention, the Brain Engagement Index (BEI). In this work we investigate the relation between the BEI and temporary functional change during a rehabilitation session. Methods First part: 13 unimpaired controls underwent BEI monitoring during motor exercise of varying levels of difficulty. Second part: 18 subacute stroke patients underwent standard motor rehabilitation with and without use of real-time BEI feedback regarding their level of engagement. Single-session temporary functional changes were evaluated based on videos taken before and after training on a given task. Two assessors, blinded to feedback use, assessed the change following single-session treatments. Results First part: a relation between difficulty of exercise and BEI was identified. Second part: temporary functional change was associated with BEI level regardless of the use of feedback. Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence that when BEI is higher, the temporary functional change induced by the treatment session is better. Further work is required to expand this preliminary study and to evaluate whether such temporary functional change can be harnessed to improve clinical outcome. Clinical Trial Registration Registered with clinicaltrials.gov, unique identifier: NCT02603718 (retrospectively registered 10/14/2015).
Collapse
|