Implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership programme in England: experiences of key health professionals explored through trial parallel process evaluation.

Complex intervention Early years Family nurse partnership Home visiting Pregnancy Process evaluation Public health nursing Qualitative focus groups Teenage

Journal

BMC nursing
ISSN: 1472-6955
Titre abrégé: BMC Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088683

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 23 10 2017
accepted: 19 03 2019
entrez: 13 4 2019
pubmed: 13 4 2019
medline: 13 4 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme was introduced to support young first-time mothers. A randomised trial found FNP added little short-term benefit compared to usual care. The study included a comprehensive parallel process evaluation, including focus groups, conducted to aid understanding of the introduction of the programme into a new service and social context. The aim of the focus groups was to investigate views of key health professionals towards the integration and delivery of FNP programme in England. Focus groups were conducted separately with Family Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives at trial sites during 2011-2012. Transcripts from audio-recordings were analysed thematically. A total of 122 professionals participated in one of 19 focus groups. Family Nurses were confident in the effectiveness of FNP, although they experienced practical difficulties meeting programme fidelity targets and considered that programme goals did not sufficiently reflect client or community priorities. Health Visitors and Midwives regarded FNP as well-resourced and beneficial to clients, describing their own services as undervalued and struggling. They wished to work closely with Family Nurses, but felt excluded from doing so by practical barriers and programme protection. FNP was described as well-resourced and delivered by highly motivated and well supported Family Nurses. FNP eligibility, content and outcomes conflicted with individual client and community priorities. These factors may have restricted the potential effectiveness of a programme developed and previously tested in a different social milieu. Building Blocks ISRCTN23019866 Registered 20/04/2009.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme was introduced to support young first-time mothers. A randomised trial found FNP added little short-term benefit compared to usual care. The study included a comprehensive parallel process evaluation, including focus groups, conducted to aid understanding of the introduction of the programme into a new service and social context. The aim of the focus groups was to investigate views of key health professionals towards the integration and delivery of FNP programme in England.
METHODS METHODS
Focus groups were conducted separately with Family Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives at trial sites during 2011-2012. Transcripts from audio-recordings were analysed thematically.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 122 professionals participated in one of 19 focus groups. Family Nurses were confident in the effectiveness of FNP, although they experienced practical difficulties meeting programme fidelity targets and considered that programme goals did not sufficiently reflect client or community priorities. Health Visitors and Midwives regarded FNP as well-resourced and beneficial to clients, describing their own services as undervalued and struggling. They wished to work closely with Family Nurses, but felt excluded from doing so by practical barriers and programme protection.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
FNP was described as well-resourced and delivered by highly motivated and well supported Family Nurses. FNP eligibility, content and outcomes conflicted with individual client and community priorities. These factors may have restricted the potential effectiveness of a programme developed and previously tested in a different social milieu. Building Blocks ISRCTN23019866 Registered 20/04/2009.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30976196
doi: 10.1186/s12912-019-0338-y
pii: 338
pmc: PMC6444391
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

13

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K023233/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The trial was approved by the NHS Research Ethics Committee for Wales, reference (09/MRE09/08). We contacted professional leads who invited their team members and circulated information sheets and consent forms before the meetings. At the start of each focus group participants re-read the information sheet, and provided written consent to participate including audio-recording and use of anonymised data including direct quotes.Not applicablePrior to working on the Building Blocks trial, Sue Channon facilitated two workshops on Motivational Interviewing for supervisors within the FNP. The authors declare no other competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Références

Future Child. 1999 Spring-Summer;9(1):44-65, 190-1
pubmed: 10414010
JAMA. 2000 Sep 20;284(11):1385-91
pubmed: 10989400
Inj Prev. 2000 Sep;6(3):219-22
pubmed: 11003189
Pediatrics. 2002 Sep;110(3):486-96
pubmed: 12205249
Pediatrics. 2004 Dec;114(6):1550-9
pubmed: 15574614
Pediatrics. 2007 Oct;120(4):e832-45
pubmed: 17908740
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2009 Apr;56(2):389-403
pubmed: 19358923
Prev Sci. 2010 Jun;11(2):115-25
pubmed: 19936922
BMC Public Health. 2011 Oct 21;11:823
pubmed: 22017924
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Feb 29;12:50
pubmed: 22375908
BMC Pediatr. 2013 Aug 06;13:114
pubmed: 23919573
Pediatrics. 1986 Jul;78(1):65-78
pubmed: 2425334
JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Feb;168(2):114-21
pubmed: 24296904
JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Sep;168(9):800-6
pubmed: 25003802
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Lancet. 2016 Jan 9;387(10014):146-55
pubmed: 26474809
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 13;7(7):e015728
pubmed: 28710218
BMJ Open. 2018 May 5;8(5):e020152
pubmed: 29730623
Am J Public Health. 1988 Nov;78(11):1436-45
pubmed: 3052116
Pediatrics. 1986 Jan;77(1):16-28
pubmed: 3510017
Fam Plann Perspect. 1987 Jul-Aug;19(4):142-51
pubmed: 3678480
Pediatrics. 1994 Jan;93(1):89-98
pubmed: 8265329
JAMA. 1997 Aug 27;278(8):637-43
pubmed: 9272895
JAMA. 1997 Aug 27;278(8):644-52
pubmed: 9272896

Auteurs

J Sanders (J)

Clinical Nursing and Midwifery, School of Healthcare Sciences, Room 1.7, Ty Dewi Sant,Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN UK.

Sue Channon (S)

2Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4YS UK.

Nina Gobat (N)

3Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4YS UK.

Kristina Bennert (K)

Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Bath, Somerset BA2 7AY UK.

Katy Addison (K)

2Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4YS UK.

Mike Robling (M)

2Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4YS UK.

Classifications MeSH