Process Assessment, Health Care

过程评估,Health Care
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:我们报告了一项随机对照试验中嵌入的混合方法过程评估。我们旨在测试和完善一个假设关键因果假设的变化模型理论,以了解痴呆症研究中的新干预措施(NIDUS)-家庭(一个手册,多模式心理社会干预),相对于常规护理是有效的,关于目标达成规模扩大(GAS)超过1年的主要结果。
    方法:在2021-2022年,干预臂二元组完成了一项可接受性问卷,以测试因果假设。我们对二元组合和干预促进者进行了定性访谈,有目的地选择不同的随访GAS评分。我们从干预会话记录中收集观察数据。我们对数据进行了主题分析,然后整合定性和定量数据。
    结果:174/204(85.3%)分配给NIDUS-Family,完全完成了它,18部分完成,而12人没有接受干预。我们采访了27/192(14%)接受任何会话的二元组合,和9/10主持人;并观察了12次会议。47/192(24.5%)的护理人员完成了可接受性问卷。我们确定了四个主题:(A)“与之交谈的人可以帮助双体感到支持”;(B)“NIDUS-Family帮助护理人员改变他们的观点”;(C)“个性化帮助痴呆症患者保持身份”和(D)“小步骤帮助双体前进”。
    结论:关键的因果途径机制是:尊重,与主持人的信任和公正的关系:支持有意义的目标的发展,并支持找到可管理的解决方案。核心实施因素是在常会中由一致的主持人交付模块。影响这些机制的核心环境因素是二元参与和对能力的理解。
    BACKGROUND: We report a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within a randomised controlled trial. We aimed to test and refine a theory of change model hypothesising key causal assumptions to understand how the New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS)-Family (a manualised, multimodal psychosocial intervention), was effective relative to usual care, on the primary outcome of Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) over 1 year.
    METHODS: In 2021-2022, intervention-arm dyads completed an acceptability questionnaire developed to test causal assumptions. We conducted qualitative interviews with dyads and intervention facilitators, purposively selected for diverse follow-up GAS scores. We collected observational data from intervention session recordings. We thematically analysed data, then integrated qualitative and quantitative data.
    RESULTS: 174/204 (85.3%) dyads allocated to NIDUS-Family, fully completed it, 18 partially completed, while 12 received no intervention. We interviewed 27/192 (14%) of dyads receiving any sessions, and 9/10 facilitators; and observed 12 sessions. 47/192 (24.5%) of carers completed the acceptability questionnaire. We identified four themes: (A) \'Someone to talk to helps dyads feel supported\'; (B) \'NIDUS-Family helps carers change their perspective\'; (C) \'Personalisation helps people living with dementia maintain their identity\' and (D) \'Small steps help dyads move forward\'.
    CONCLUSIONS: Key causal pathway mechanisms were: a respectful, trusting and impartial relationship with the facilitator: supporting the development of meaningful goals and support to find manageable solutions. Core implementation factors were delivery of the modules from a consistent facilitator across regular sessions. Core contextual factors influencing these mechanisms were dyadic participation and understanding of abilities.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:正确的康复方式(HRW)旨在通过促进系统级获得文化上安全的康复服务来改善患有中风或创伤性脑损伤的澳大利亚原住民的健康状况。使用阶梯式楔形随机对照试验(RCT)设计(ACTRN12618000139279,2018年1月30日),在四家农村医院和四家城市医院引入了双管齐下的干预措施,包括1。员工的文化安全培训(CST)和2。培训/雇用土著脑损伤协调员(ABIC),以支持土著患者受伤后6个月。四分之三的招募患者生活在农村。主要结果指标是生活质量,次要结果包括功能测量,最低护理流程(MPC);接受服务的康复次数,改善医院体验。评估是在基线时进行的,受伤后12周和26周。在干预患者中,只有MPC和医院经验得到改善。我们报告了旨在支持结果解释和翻译的过程评估。
    方法:使用混合方法,评估设计是由实施研究综合框架提供的。数据源包括分钟数、项目日志,调查,半结构化面试,和观察。四个评估问题为系统确定试验质量提供了基础。将来自不同来源的调查结果结合起来,以综合解决评估问题的新兴主题。分别考虑了三个组成部分:试验过程,CST和ABIC。
    结果:复杂的HRW试验实施到令人满意的水平,尽管有挑战性的设定因素,特别是城乡系统动态。无法克服患者招募限制。阶梯式楔形设计对时间效应的脆弱性影响了招募和试验结果,由于COVID。尽管后续行动相对较多,包括农村/偏远地区,数据点减少。缺乏文化上适当的评估工具影响了评估数据的质量/完整性。ABIC的作用被认为是可行的,并且广受好评。CST涉及复杂的物流,但评价很高,尽管在线组件通常不完整。项目管理对员工做出了回应,患者和设置因素。
    结论:尽管结果大多模棱两可,ABIC的作用在主流医院中是可行的,CST受到高度重视.学习将有助于为脑损伤后的原住民建立强大的全州文化安全康复模型,包括MPC,劳动力,培训和跟进。
    BACKGROUND: Healing Right Way (HRW) aimed to improve health outcomes for Aboriginal Australians with stroke or traumatic brain injury by facilitating system-level access to culturally secure rehabilitation services. Using a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT) design (ACTRN12618000139279, 30/01/2018), a two-pronged intervention was introduced in four rural and four urban hospitals, comprising 1.Cultural security training (CST) for staff and 2.Training/employment of Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinators (ABIC) to support Aboriginal patients for 6-months post-injury. Three-quarters of recruited patients lived rurally. The main outcome measure was quality-of-life, with secondary outcomes including functional measures, minimum processes of care (MPC); number rehabilitation occasions of service received, and improved hospital experience. Assessments were undertaken at baseline, 12- and 26-weeks post-injury. Only MPCs and hospital experience were found to improve among intervention patients. We report on the process evaluation aiming to support interpretation and translation of results.
    METHODS: Using mixed methods, the evaluation design was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data sources included minutes, project logs, surveys, semi-structured interviews, and observations. Four evaluation questions provided a basis for systematic determination of the quality of the trial. Findings from separate sources were combined to synthesise the emerging themes that addressed the evaluation questions. Three components were considered separately: the trial process, CST and ABIC.
    RESULTS: The complex HRW trial was implemented to a satisfactory level despite challenging setting factors, particularly rural-urban system dynamics. Patient recruitment constraints could not be overcome. The vulnerability of stepped-wedge designs to time effects influenced recruitment and trial results, due to COVID. Despite relatively high follow-up, including to rural/remote areas, data points were reduced. The lack of culturally appropriate assessment tools influenced the quality/completeness of assessment data. The ABIC role was deemed feasible and well-received. The CST involved complex logistics, but rated highly although online components were often incomplete. Project management was responsive to staff, patients and setting factors.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite mostly equivocal results, the ABIC role was feasible within mainstream hospitals and the CST was highly valued. Learnings will help build robust state-wide models of culturally secure rehabilitation for Aboriginal people after brain injury, including MPC, workforce, training and follow-up.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:长期病假后重返工作岗位可能具有挑战性,特别是在支持可能有限的中小型企业(SME)中。认识到中小企业雇主的责任和挑战,已经开发了基于网络的干预(以下简称中小企业工具)。中小企业工具旨在提高雇主的意图和能力,以支持生病的雇员。基于自决理论,据推测,通过干预雇主的自主权,这一意图得到了加强,能力,和针对性的亲密关系,例如,与生病的员工沟通,其他利益相关者的参与,和实际支持。这是通过提供模板来实现的,通信视频,和立法信息。本文介绍了SME工具的效果和过程评估的设计。
    方法:一项为期6个月随访的随机对照试验(RCT)将采用平行组设计,分为两组:干预组和对照组。有长期病假风险的中小企业(≤250名员工)的病态雇员(≤8周)及其雇主将被招募并随机分配为二元(1:1)。随机分配到干预组的雇主可以无限制地使用中小企业工具,而对照组将照常接受护理。主要结果是员工对雇主提供的重返工作(RTW)支持的满意度。次要结果包括社会支持,工作表现,以及员工级别的工作生活质量以及在雇主级别提供RTW支持的自我效能。结果将在基线和随访1、3和6个月时使用问卷进行评估。过程评估措施包括,例如,中小企业工具的招聘、使用和感知有用性。此外,与雇主的半结构化面试,雇员,和职业医生将探讨RCT结果的解释和国家实施中小企业工具的策略。
    结论:SME工具被认为是有价值的,除了常规护理外,还可以帮助雇主有效地支持其长期患病员工的RTW,通过提高雇主的意愿和支持能力。
    背景:ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT06330415。2024年2月14日注册。
    BACKGROUND: Returning to work after long-term sick leave can be challenging, particularly in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) where support may be limited. Recognizing the responsibilities and challenges of SME employers, a web-based intervention (hereafter the SME tool) has been developed. The SME tool aims to enhance the employer\'s intention and ability to support the sick-listed employee. Based on the Self-Determination Theory, it is hypothesized that this intention is enhanced by intervening in the employer\'s autonomy, competences, and relatedness targeted at, e.g., communication with sick-listed employee, involvement of other stakeholders, and practical support. This is achieved by means of providing templates, communication videos, and information on legislation. This article describes the design of an effect and process evaluation of the SME tool.
    METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted with a parallel-group design with two arms: an intervention group and a control group. Sick-listed employees (≤ 8 weeks) of SMEs (≤ 250 employees) at risk of long-term sick leave and their employers will be recruited and randomly allocated as a dyad (1:1). Employers randomized to the intervention group receive unlimited access to the SME tool, while those in the control group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome is the satisfaction of the employee with the return to work (RTW) support provided by their employer. Secondary outcomes include social support, work performance, and quality of work life at the employee level and self-efficacy in providing RTW support at the employer level. Outcomes will be assessed using questionnaires at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-up. Process evaluation measures include, e.g., recruitment and use of and perceived usefulness of the SME tool. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with employers, employees, and occupational physicians will explore the interpretation of the RCT results and strategies for the national implementation of the SME tool.
    CONCLUSIONS: The SME tool is hypothesized to be valuable in addition to usual care helping employers to effectively support the RTW of their long-term sick-listed employees, by improving the employers\' intention and ability to support.
    BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06330415. Registered on February 14, 2024.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:尽管临床护理中的体力活动处方已在世界范围内得到提倡,在荷兰,“运动即医学”(E=M)尚未在临床护理中常规实施。
    方法:试点实施了一套实施策略,以测试其在大学医学中心2个部门的临床医生中用于常规护理的可行性。进行了广泛的学习过程评估,使用结构化混合方法方法论,根据接触,Effect,收养,实施,维护框架。
    结果:从采用的5种实施策略(教育,E=M工具嵌入电子病历,生活方式教练位于部门内,推荐选项概述,和项目支持),充分的项目支持是实施E=M的有力促进者。此外,生活方式教练在部门内的存在似乎对转诊率至关重要。尽管临床医生赞赏E=M工具,障碍阻碍了它在实践中的使用。
    结论:具体的实施策略,根据设置量身定制,有效促进E=M的实施,特别是对E=M的临床医生的教育,在部门内部署生活方式教练,项目协调。护理提供者确实看到了在结构上嵌入医院的生活方式教练的未来,他们很容易提到的人。
    BACKGROUND: Although the prescription of physical activity in clinical care has been advocated worldwide, in the Netherlands, \"Exercise is Medicine\" (E = M) is not yet routinely implemented in clinical care.
    METHODS: A set of implementation strategies was pilot implemented to test its feasibility for use in routine care by clinicians in 2 departments of a university medical center. An extensive learning process evaluation was performed, using structured mixed methods methodology, in accordance with the Reach, Effect, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework.
    RESULTS: From 5 implementation strategies employed (education, E = M tool embedded in the electronic medical records, lifestyle coach situated within the department, overviews of referral options, and project support), the presence of adequate project support was a strong facilitator of the implementation of E = M. Also, the presence of the lifestyle coach within the department seemed essential for referral rate. Although clinicians appreciated the E = M tool, barriers hampered its use in practice.
    CONCLUSIONS: Specific implementation strategies, tailored to the setting, are effective in facilitating the implementation of E = M with specific regard to education for clinicians on E = M, deployment of a lifestyle coach within a department, and project coordination. Care providers do see a future for lifestyle coaches who are structurally embedded in the hospital, to whom they can easily refer.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:全面性教育(CSE)对于解决青少年的负面性健康和生殖健康(SRH)结局至关重要。然而,在包括赞比亚在内的许多低收入和中等收入国家,对这种影响知之甚少,CSE实施的现实,教学质量和内容的全面性。
    方法:我们的方法是通过过程评估获得的,其中包括欧洲专家组关于评估性教育计划的指南和医学研究理事会(MRC)过程评估指南的建议。CSE实施的开发过程和质量分别使用八个和六个质量标准进行评估。深度访谈(IDI)焦点小组讨论(FGD),采用文档分析和课堂观察来评估情境因素,CSE的实施过程和影响机制。在64名有意选择的参与者中,对每组7名学生进行了深入访谈(50)和焦点小组讨论(2)。样本包括学生(35),来自九所中学的家长(4人)和教师(17人)(四所郊区,四个城市和一个农村),决策者(4),宗教领袖(4)。我们采用演绎内容分析来分析数据。
    结果:影响CSE实施的背景因素包括:(1)CSE计划的零碎资金;(2)学校缺乏监测计划;(3)缺乏社区参与;(4)宗教和社会文化障碍;(5)缺乏教授CSE的技能和能力;(6)CSE的时间分配不足。对CSE发展质量的评估显示:(1)缺乏性别多样性;(2)学生没有有意义地参与计划的执行;(3)在计划执行过程中缺乏利益相关者的参与;(4)缺乏性别敏感性;(5)缺乏人权方法。对CSE实施质量的评估显示:(1)没有基于技能的CSE教学的证据;(2)社区中CSE和SRH服务之间没有联系;(3)在CSE教学过程中缺乏多种交付方法的结合。CSE的影响机制与学生SRH实践的可接受性和积极变化有关。
    结论:CSE实施过程中情境因素的复杂影响突出了介入设计过程中情境分析的必要性。通过利益相关者的参与共同创建CSE计划可以减少社会反对,并使文化敏感的CSE成为可能。全面的教师培训,指导课程以及设置适当的监测工具和指标可能会提高CSE实施的质量。
    BACKGROUND: Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) is critical in addressing negative sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes among adolescents. Yet in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including Zambia, little is known about the impact, realities of CSE implementation, the quality of teaching and the comprehensiveness of the content covered.
    METHODS: Our approach was informed by a process evaluation incorporating recommendations by the European Expert Group guidance on evaluating sexuality education programmes and the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines on process evaluation. The development process and quality of CSE implementation were assessed using eight and six quality criteria respectively. In-depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), document analysis and classroom observation were employed to assess contextual factors, implementation process and mechanisms of impact of CSE. In-depth interviews (50) and focus group discussions (2) with seven pupils in each group were conducted among 64 purposefully selected participants. The sample comprised pupils (35), parents (4) and teachers (17) from nine secondary schools (four peri-urban, four urban and one rural), policymakers (4), and religious leaders (4). We employed deductive content analysis to analyse the data.
    RESULTS: Contextual factors that influenced the implementation of CSE included: (1) piecemeal funding for the CSE programme; (2) lack of monitoring programmes in schools; (3) lack of community engagement; (4) religious and socio-cultural barriers; (5) lack of skills and competency to teach CSE; and (6) insufficient time allocation for CSE. The assessment of the quality of the development of CSE revealed: (1) a lack of sexual diversity; (2) no meaningful participation of pupils in programme implementation; (3) a lack of stakeholder engagement during programme implementation; (4)  lack of gender sensitivity; and (5) lack of human rights approach. Assessment of the quality of the implementation of CSE revealed: (1) no evidence of skill-based CSE teaching; (2) no linkage between CSE and SRH services in the communities; and (3) a lack of incorporation of multiple delivery methods during CSE teaching. The mechanisms of impact of CSE were related to the acceptability and positive changes in pupils\' SRH practices.
    CONCLUSIONS: The complex influences of contextual factors during CSE implementation highlight the need for contextual analysis during the interventional design. Co-creation of the CSE programme through stakeholder participation could reduce social opposition and enable a culturally sensitive CSE. Comprehensive teacher training, a guiding curriculum as well as setting of appropriate monitoring tools and indicators are likely to enhance the quality of CSE implementation.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目标:参与式组织层面的干预有实施失败的风险。本研究评估了小学教育工作压力预防方法的实施情况,并反思了使用实时反馈作为预防这种风险的实施策略。
    方法:过程评估在荷兰的四所小学进行。使用混合方法应用了评估组织层面干预措施的框架。
    结果:结果表明,学校之间的实施水平各不相同,并且受到干预背景的阻碍,学校大小,以及方法的规划。管理承诺和员工参与是成功实施的重要因素。实时反馈似乎对进一步改进实施有价值,但不能防止执行失败。
    结论:在方法的活动阶段之前收集有关实施因素的数据,可以提供更早预测实施问题的可能性。
    OBJECTIVE: Participatory organizational-level interventions carry a risk of implementation failure. The current study evaluates the implementation of a work stress prevention approach in primary education and reflects on the use of real-time feedback as implementation strategy to prevent this risk.
    METHODS: The process evaluation was conducted at four primary schools in the Netherlands. A framework for evaluating organizational-level interventions was applied using mixed methods.
    RESULTS: Results show the implementation level varied between schools and was hindered by the intervention context, school size, and planning of the approach. Management commitment and employee involvement seemed important factors for successful implementation. Real-time feedback seemed valuable to further improve implementation, but not to prevent implementation failure.
    CONCLUSIONS: Collecting data on implementation factors before the active phase of the approach, may provide the possibility to anticipate on implementation problems earlier.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:POINCARE-2试验旨在评估一种旨在通过每日称重和随后的治疗措施解决危重患者体液超负荷的策略的有效性。即使在高度标准化的护理环境中,比如重症监护病房,这种复杂干预措施的有效性取决于其实际有效性,也取决于其实施程度。使用过程评估,我们旨在提供对实施的理解,context,以及试验过程中POINCARE-2策略变化的机制,了解其有效性,并告知有关干预措施传播的决定。
    方法:我们遵循医学研究理事会指南进行了混合方法过程评估。这两个定量数据都来自试验,并使用来自与专业人士的半结构化访谈的定性数据来解释实施,POINCARE-2战略的变化机制,以及潜在影响战略实施的环境因素。
    结果:在对照期间,该策略的实际暴露分数为29.1%至68.2%,干预期间从61.9%上升到92.3%,表明了潜在的污染和对策略的次优保真度。缺乏适当的称重装置,缺乏专门用于研究的人力资源,审判前根深蒂固的处方习惯,和预期的战略知识已被确定为在试验背景下最佳实施战略的主要障碍。
    结论:POINCARE-2策略的污染和次优保真度都引起了人们对意向治疗(ITT)分析无效的潜在偏见的担忧。然而,最佳保真度似乎是可以实现的。因此,临床策略不应仅基于ITT分析的阴性结果而被拒绝.我们的研究结果表明,即使在高度标准化的护理条件下,临床策略的实施可能受到许多环境因素的阻碍,这表明了评估干预措施可行性的至关重要性,在对其有效性进行任何评估之前。
    背景:编号NCT02765009。
    BACKGROUND: POINCARE-2 trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of a strategy designed to tackle fluid overload through daily weighing and subsequent administration of treatments in critically ill patients. Even in highly standardized care settings, such as intensive care units, effectiveness of such a complex intervention depends on its actual efficacy but also on the extent of its implementation. Using a process evaluation, we aimed to provide understanding of the implementation, context, and mechanisms of change of POINCARE-2 strategy during the trial, to gain insight on its effectiveness and inform the decision regarding the dissemination of the intervention.
    METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method process evaluation following the Medical Research Council guideline. Both quantitative data derived from the trial, and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with professionals were used to explain implementation, mechanisms of change of the POINCARE-2 strategy, as well as contextual factors potentially influencing implementation of the strategy.
    RESULTS: Score of actual exposure to the strategy ranged from 29.1 to 68.2% during the control period, and from 61.9 to 92.3% during the intervention period, suggesting both potential contamination and suboptimal fidelity to the strategy. Lack of appropriate weighing devices, lack of human resources dedicated to research, pre-trial rooted prescription habits, and anticipated knowledge of the strategy have been identified as the main barriers to optimal implementation of the strategy in the trial context.
    CONCLUSIONS: Both contamination and suboptimal fidelity to POINCARE-2 strategy raised concerns about a potential bias towards the null of intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. However, optimal fidelity seemed reachable. Consequently, a clinical strategy should not be rejected solely on the basis of the negativity of ITT analyses\' results. Our findings showed that, even in highly standardized care conditions, the implementation of clinical strategies may be hindered by numerous contextual factors, which demonstrates the critical importance of assessing the viability of an intervention, prior to any evaluation of its effectiveness.
    BACKGROUND: Number NCT02765009.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:台阶石三重P(SSTP)是一种复杂的父母介导的干预措施,旨在减少中度至重度智力障碍儿童的挑战行为,年龄30-59个月。
    方法:为了全面了解SSTP在英国的实施情况,我们进行了过程评估,收集利益相关者的意见,并考虑干预措施的保真度,剂量,reach,交付适应,和可接受性。
    结果:保真度和分娩质量评级较高。父母认为SSTP很有价值,报告增加了父母对孩子行为的信心和理解。然而,只有30%的家庭接受了足够剂量的干预.只像往常一样接受治疗的父母描述了被当前服务抛弃的感觉。服务经理强调了资源可用性和治疗师培训对于成功实施干预的重要性。
    结论:SSTP支持对具有挑战性的早发性行为的有效管理。需要进一步的工作,以确保在卫生和社会护理服务中公平获得干预措施。
    背景:NCT03086876-https://www.
    结果:gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis+Angela&draw=1&rank=1。
    BACKGROUND: Stepping Stones Triple P (SSTP) is a complex parent-mediated intervention aimed to reduce behaviours that challenge in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities, aged 30-59 months.
    METHODS: To formulate a comprehensive understanding of SSTP implementation in the UK, we conducted a process evaluation collecting stakeholder views and considering intervention fidelity, dose, reach, delivery adaptations, and acceptability.
    RESULTS: Fidelity and quality of delivery ratings were high. Parents perceived SSTP as valuable, reporting increased parental confidence and understanding of the child\'s behaviours. However, only 30% of families received an adequate dose of the intervention. Parents who only received treatment as usual described feeling abandoned by current services. Service managers emphasised the importance of availability of resources and therapist training for successful intervention delivery.
    CONCLUSIONS: SSTP supports effective management of early-onset behaviours that challenge. Further work is needed to ensure equitable access to the intervention across health and social care services.
    BACKGROUND: NCT03086876 - https://www.
    RESULTS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis+Angela&draw=1&rank=1.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:开发了慢性病负担评估(ABCC-)工具,以促进基于共享决策和个性化护理计划的患者-医疗保健提供者(HCP)对话中的个性化护理方法。一项有效性研究强调了其对感知的护理质量和患者激活的影响。成功实施新颖的干预措施需要了解用户的实际应用,用户体验和实施结果评估。这项研究旨在评估HCP在荷兰初级保健中实施ABCC工具的情况。
    方法:本研究是对较大的1型有效性-实施混合试验的过程评估。与HCPs的半结构化访谈,他们是混合试验的干预主义者,在他们开始使用ABCC工具后的三个月和十二个月举行。使用到达-有效性-采用-实施-维护(RE-AIM)框架来评估实施结果。通过使用Carroll的框架对实施保真度进行评估,进一步加强了实施领域。在RE-AIM框架内,采用归纳编码和主题分析来确定相关的参与者经验和实施成果。
    结果:十七个HCP(1名全科医生,16名执业护士)参加了这项研究,代表39%的潜在合格参与者。大多数HCP在完成自己的例程后应用了该工具,而不是打算如何使用该工具,即从协商开始。HCPs达到2-6名患者。最初采用了ABCC工具,但由于与COVID-19相关的咨询取消,12个HCP停止使用该工具。应用问卷和可视化发现了高保真度。低保真度用于应用共享决策,制定护理目标和监测进展。HCP指出,ABCC工具的维护取决于随附的培训和实施支持。
    结论:HCP应用的ABCC工具与预期的截然不同,可能会降低其优势和易用性。该评估强调需要制定量身定制的实施计划,其中包括有关如何以及何时使用ABCC工具的更详细培训和指导。
    BACKGROUND: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC-)tool is developed to facilitate a personalized approach to care in the patient-healthcare provider (HCP) conversation based on shared decision-making and individualized care plans. An effectiveness study highlighted its effect on the perceived quality of care and patient activation. Successful implementation of novel interventions necessitates an understanding of the user\'s actual application, user experiences and an evaluation of implementation outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the ABCC-tool by HCPs in Dutch primary care.
    METHODS: This study is the process evaluation of a larger type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial. Semi-structured interviews with HCPs, who were interventionists in the hybrid trial, were held at three and twelve months after they started using the ABCC-tool. The Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate implementation outcomes. The Implementation domain was further strengthened with an evaluation of implementation fidelity using Carroll\'s framework. Inductive coding and thematic analysis were applied to identify relevant participant experiences and implementation outcomes within the RE-AIM framework.
    RESULTS: Seventeen HCPs (1 general practitioner, 16 practice nurses) participated in the study, representing 39% of potentially eligible participants. Most HCPs applied the tool after finishing their own routines instead of how it is intended to be used, namely from the beginning of the consultation. HCPs reached 2-6 patients. The ABCC-tool was initially adopted, but twelve HCPs stopped using the tool due to COVID-19 related cancellation of consultations. High fidelity was found for applying the questionnaire and visualization. Low fidelity was present for applying shared decision-making, formulating care goals and monitoring progress. HCPs indicated that maintaning the ABCC-tool depended on accompanying training and implementation support.
    CONCLUSIONS: HCPs applied the ABCC-tool critically different from intended, potentially diminishing its benefits and ease of use. This evaluation stresses the need for a tailored implementation plan that includes more detailed training and guidance on how and when to use the ABCC-tool.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号