scholarly journals Implementation of a New Hampshire community-initiated response to the opioid crisis: A mixed-methods process evaluation of Safe Station

2021 ◽  
Vol 95 ◽  
pp. 103259
Author(s):  
Sarah K. Moore ◽  
Elizabeth C. Saunders ◽  
Bethany McLeman ◽  
Stephen A. Metcalf ◽  
Olivia Walsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
New Hampshire ◽  
Opioid Crisis

scholarly journals Mixed-methods process evaluation of SafeTea: a multimedia campaign to prevent hot drink scalds in young children and promote burn first aid

2020 ◽  
pp. injuryprev-2020-043909
Author(s):  
Laura Elizabeth Cowley ◽  
C Verity Bennett ◽  
Isabelle Brown ◽  
Alan Emond ◽  
Alison Mary Kemp
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Behavioural Change ◽  
First Aid ◽  
Multifaceted Intervention ◽  
Media Content ◽  
Educational Videos ◽  
The Uk

ObjectivesSafeTea is a multifaceted intervention delivered by community practitioners to prevent hot drink scalds to young children and improve parents’ knowledge of appropriate burn first aid. We adapted SafeTea for a national multimedia campaign, and present a mixed-methods process evaluation of the campaign.MethodsWe used social media, a website hosting downloadable materials and media publicity to disseminate key messages to parents/caregivers of young children and professionals working with these families across the UK. The SafeTea campaign was launched on National Burns Awareness Day (NBAD), October 2019, and ran for 3 months. Process evaluation measurements included social media metrics, Google Analytics, and quantitative and qualitative results from a survey of professionals who requested hard copies of the materials via the website.ResultsFindings were summarised under four themes: ‘reach’, ‘engagement’, ‘acceptability’ and ‘impact/behavioural change’. The launch on NBAD generated widespread publicity. The campaign reached a greater number of the target audience than anticipated, with over 400 000 views of the SafeTea educational videos. Parents and professionals engaged with SafeTea and expressed positive opinions of the campaign and materials. SafeTea encouraged parents to consider how to change their behaviours to minimise the risks associated with hot drinks. Reach and engagement steadily declined after the first month due to reduced publicity and social media promotion.ConclusionThe SafeTea campaign was successful in terms of reach and engagement. The launch on NBAD was essential for generating media interest. Future campaigns could be shorter, with more funding for additional social media content and promotion.

scholarly journals A Combined Impact-Process Evaluation of a Program Promoting Active Transport to School: Understanding the Factors That Shaped Program Effectiveness

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Crawford ◽  
J. Garrard
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Active Transport ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Program Effectiveness ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Program Staff ◽  
Impact Process

This mixed methods study was a comprehensive impact-process evaluation of the Ride2School program in metropolitan and regional areas in Victoria, Australia. The program aimed to promote transport to school for primary school children. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected at baseline and followup from two primary schools involved in the pilot phase of the program and two matched comparison schools, and a further 13 primary schools that participated in the implementation phase of the program. Classroom surveys, structured and unstructured observations, and interviews with Ride2School program staff were used to evaluate the pilot program. For the 13 schools in the second phase of the program, parents and students completed questionnaires at baseline (N= 889) and followup (N= 761). Based on the quantitative data, there was little evidence of an overall increase in active transport to school across participating schools, although impacts varied among individual schools. Qualitative data in the form of observations, interviews, and focus group discussions with students, school staff, and program staff provided insight into the reasons for variable program impacts. This paper highlights the benefits of undertaking a mixed methods approach to evaluating active transport to school programs that enables both measurement and understanding of program impacts.

scholarly journals Implementing person-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) into routine palliative care: A protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation of The RESOLVE PCOM Implementation Strategy

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e051904
Author(s):  
Andy Bradshaw ◽  
Martina Santarelli ◽  
Assem M Khamis ◽  
Kathryn Sartain ◽  
Miriam Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Implementation Strategy ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Ethical Approval

IntroductionPerson-centred outcome measures improve quality of care and patient outcomes but are used inconsistently in palliative care practice. To address this implementation gap, we developed the ‘RESOLVE Implementation Strategy’. This protocol describes a process evaluation to explore mechanisms through which this strategy does, or does not, support the implementation of outcome measures in routine palliative care practice.Methods and analysisMultistrand, mixed-methods process evaluation. Strand one will collect routine outcomes data (palliative Phase of Illness, Integrated Palliative care Outcomes Scale, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status) to map the changes in use of outcome measures over 12 months (July 2021–July 2022). Strand two will collect survey data over the same 12-month period to explore how professionals’ understandings of, skills in using and ability to build organisational practices around, outcome measures change over time. Strand three will collect interview data to understand the mechanisms underpinning/affecting our implementation strategy. Thematic framework analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, respectively.Ethics and disseminationFor strand one, ethical approval has been obtained (Cambridge REC, REF: 20/EE/0188). For strands two and three, ethical approval has been obtained from Hull York Medical School ethics committee (2105). Tailored feedback of study findings will be provided to participating sites. Abstracts and papers will be submitted to national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Lay and policy briefings and newsletters will be shared through patient and public involvement and project networks, plus via the project website.

scholarly journals Understanding Implementation of a Digital Self-Monitoring Intervention for Relapse Prevention in Psychosis: Protocol for a Mixed Method Process Evaluation

10.2196/15634 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e15634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Allan ◽  
Hamish Mcleod ◽  
Simon Bradstreet ◽  
Sara Beedie ◽  
Bethany Moir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Relapse Prevention ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Negative Consequences

Background Relapse is common in people who experience psychosis and is associated with many negative consequences, both societal and personal. People who relapse often exhibit changes (early warning signs [EWS]) in the period before relapse. Successful identification of EWS offers an opportunity for relapse prevention. However, several known barriers impede the use of EWS monitoring approaches. Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) is a complex digital intervention that uses a mobile app to enhance the detection and management of self-reported changes in well-being. This is currently being tested in a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. As digital interventions have not been widely used in relapse prevention, little is known about their implementation. Process evaluation studies run in parallel to clinical trials can provide valuable data on intervention feasibility. Objective This study aims to transparently describe the protocol for the process evaluation element of the EMPOWER trial. We will focus on the development of a process evaluation framework sensitive to the worldview of service users, mental health staff, and carers; the aims of the process evaluation itself; the proposed studies to address these aims; and a plan for integration of results from separate process evaluation studies into one overall report. Methods The overall process evaluation will utilize mixed methods across 6 substudies. Among them, 4 will use qualitative methodologies, 1 will use a mixed methods approach, and 1 will use quantitative methodologies. Results The results of all studies will be triangulated into an overall analysis and interpretation of key implementation lessons. EMPOWER was funded in 2016, recruitment finished in January 2018. Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in December 2019. Conclusions The findings from this study will help identify implementation facilitators and barriers to EMPOWER. These insights will inform both upscaling decisions and optimization of a definitive trial. Trial Registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN99559262; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN99559262 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/15634

scholarly journals A mixed methods process evaluation of a person-centred falls prevention program

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Morris ◽  
Keith D. Hill ◽  
Ilana N. Ackerman ◽  
Darshini Ayton ◽  
Glenn Arendts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Prevention Program ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Implementation Fidelity ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Trial Registration

Abstract Background RESPOND is a telephone-based falls prevention program for older people who present to a hospital emergency department (ED) with a fall. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) found RESPOND to be effective at reducing the rate of falls and fractures, compared with usual care, but not fall injuries or hospitalisations. This process evaluation aimed to determine whether RESPOND was implemented as planned, and identify implementation barriers and facilitators. Methods A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted alongside the RCT. Evaluation participants were the RESPOND intervention group (n = 263) and the clinicians delivering RESPOND (n = 7). Evaluation data were collected from participant recruitment and intervention records, hospital administrative records, audio-recordings of intervention sessions, and participant questionnaires. The Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD) was used to evaluate person-centredness (score range 0 (worst) - 9 (best)). Process factors were compared with pre-specified criteria to determine implementation fidelity. Six focus groups were held with participants (n = 41), and interviews were conducted with RESPOND clinicians (n = 6). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data thematically. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were mapped to the ‘Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour’ (COM-B) behaviour change framework. Results RESPOND was implemented at a lower dose than the planned 10 h over 6 months, with a median (IQR) of 2.9 h (2.1, 4). The majority (76%) of participants received their first intervention session within 1 month of hospital discharge with a median (IQR) of 18 (12, 30) days. Clinicians delivered the program in a person-centred manner with a median (IQR) RPAD score of 7 (6.5, 7.5) and 87% of questionnaire respondents were satisfied with the program. The reports from participants and clinicians suggested that implementation was facilitated by the use of positive and personally relevant health messages. Complex health and social issues were the main barriers to implementation. Conclusions RESPOND was person-centred and reduced falls and fractures at a substantially lower dose, using fewer resources, than anticipated. However, the low dose delivered may account for the lack of effect on falls injuries and hospitalisations. The results from this evaluation provide detailed information to guide future implementation of RESPOND or similar programs. Trial registration This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000336684 (27 March 2014).

scholarly journals A coordinated preventive care approach for healthy ageing in five European cities: A mixed methods study of process evaluation components

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (12) ◽  
pp. 3689-3701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen B. Franse ◽  
Xuxi Zhang ◽  
Amy Grieken ◽  
Judith Rietjens ◽  
Tamara Alhambra‐Borrás ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Preventive Care ◽  
Healthy Ageing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
European Cities ◽  
Care Approach

scholarly journals A mixed-methods feasibility study of an arts-based intervention for patients receiving maintenance haemodialysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Carswell ◽  
Joanne Reid ◽  
Ian Walsh ◽  
William Johnston ◽  
Helen McAneney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cluster Rct ◽  
Definitive Trial ◽  
Qualitative Process Evaluation

Abstract Background Haemodialysis can negatively impact quality of life and mental health. Arts-based interventions used successfully in other settings to improve health and well-being, could help address the impact of haemodialysis. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an arts-based intervention for patients receiving haemodialysis. Methods A parallel convergent mixed-methods design was used, including a pilot cluster RCT and qualitative process evaluation. Phase 1 evaluated recruitment and retention rates through a pilot cluster RCT at a single haemodialysis unit in Northern Ireland. Participants included patients who received haemodialysis for ESKD, were over the age of 18 and had the capacity to consent. These participants were randomised to the intervention or control group according to their haemodialysis shift. The intervention involved six one-hour, one-to-one facilitated arts sessions during haemodialysis. Phase 2 explored intervention and trial acceptability through a qualitative process evaluation using semi-structured interviews based on the RE-AIM framework. Participants included 13 patients who participated in phase 1 of the study, including 9 participants from the experimental group and four participants from the control group, and nine healthcare professionals who were present on the unit during implementation. Results Out of 122 outpatient haemodialysis patients, 94 were assessed as eligible for participation. Twenty-four participants were randomised, meaning 80% of the target sample size was recruited and the attrition rate at 3 months was 12.5% (n = 3). Participants viewed the arts as more accessible and enjoyable than anticipated following implementation. All participants who started the intervention (n = 11) completed the full six sessions. Qualitative benefits of the intervention suggest improvements in mental well-being. Patient choice and facilitation were important factors for successful implementation. Conclusion An arts-based intervention for patients receiving haemodialysis is acceptable for both patients and healthcare professionals, and a definitive trial is feasible. The intervention may help improve mental-wellbeing in patients receiving haemodialysis, but this requires further investigation in a definitive trial. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 14/8/2018, registration number NCT03629496.

scholarly journals Can implementation failure or intervention failure explain the result of the 3D multimorbidity trial in general practice: mixed-methods process evaluation

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Mann ◽  
Ali R G Shaw ◽  
Bruce Guthrie ◽  
Lesley Wye ◽  
Mei-See Man ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Implementation Fidelity ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Implementation Barriers ◽  
Recommended Care ◽  
Intervention Failure ◽  
Implementation Failure

ObjectivesDuring a cluster randomised trial, (the 3D study) of an intervention enacting recommended care for people with multimorbidity, including continuity of care and comprehensive biennial reviews, we examined implementation fidelity to interpret the trial outcome and inform future implementation decisions.DesignMixed-methods process evaluation using cross-trial data and a sample of practices, clinicians, administrators and patients. Interviews, focus groups and review observations were analysed thematically and integrated with quantitative data about implementation. Analysis was blind to trial outcomes and examined context, intervention adoption, reach and maintenance, and delivery of reviews to patients.SettingThirty-three UK general practices in three areas.ParticipantsThe trial included 1546 people with multimorbidity. 11 general practitioners, 14 nurses, 7 administrators and 38 patients from 9 of 16 intervention practices were sampled for an interview.ResultsStaff loss, practice size and different administrative strategies influenced implementation fidelity. Practices with whole administrative team involvement and good alignment between the intervention and usual care generally implemented better. Fewer reviews than intended were delivered (49% of patients receiving both intended reviews, 30% partially reviewed). In completed reviews >90% of intended components were delivered, but review observations and interviews with patients and clinicians found variation in style of component delivery, from ‘tick-box’ to patient-centred approaches. Implementation barriers included inadequate skills training to implement patient-centred care planning, but patients reported increased patient-centredness due to comprehensive reviews, extra time and being asked about their health concerns.ConclusionsImplementation failure contributed to lack of impact of the 3D intervention on the trial primary outcome (quality of life), but so did intervention failure since modifiable elements of intervention design were partially responsible. When a decisive distinction between implementation failure and intervention failure cannot be made, identifying potentially modifiable reasons for suboptimal implementation is important to enhance potential for impact and effectiveness of a redesigned intervention.Trial registration numberISRCTN06180958

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document