A mixed methods process evaluation of a person-centred falls prevention program.
Falls prevention
emergency department
fractures
older adults
process evaluation, complex intervention, mixed methods
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Nov 2019
28 Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
23
04
2019
accepted:
04
10
2019
entrez:
30
11
2019
pubmed:
30
11
2019
medline:
17
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000336684 (27 March 2014).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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
BACKGROUND
This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000336684 (27 March 2014).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31779624
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4614-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-4614-z
pmc: PMC6883679
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
906Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : APP1056802
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : 1067236
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : 1052442
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : CDF-2015-08- 030
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2012 May;68(5):1003-13
pubmed: 21831130
Age Ageing. 2005 Mar;34(2):162-8
pubmed: 15716246
Age Ageing. 2009 Jan;38(1):40-6
pubmed: 19141507
Ann Fam Med. 2014 May-Jun;12(3):270-5
pubmed: 24821899
Emerg Med Australas. 2017 Oct;29(5):524-530
pubmed: 28544279
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6
pubmed: 16484270
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Sep;56(3):261-9
pubmed: 20619500
J Aging Phys Act. 2009 Apr;17(2):210-22
pubmed: 19451669
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Jun;57(6):971-7
pubmed: 19507291
Lancet. 1999 Jan 9;353(9147):93-7
pubmed: 10023893
Geriatr Nurs. 2014 May-Jun;35(3):219-24
pubmed: 24656051
Ann Fam Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;3(5):436-42
pubmed: 16189060
Inj Prev. 2015 Feb;21(1):e1
pubmed: 24958769
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Age Ageing. 2002 May;31(3):203-10
pubmed: 12006310
Nurs Health Sci. 2005 Mar;7(1):29-36
pubmed: 15670004
Am J Emerg Med. 2009 Mar;27(3):303-7
pubmed: 19328374
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Jun;98(6):1086-1096
pubmed: 28202383
BMJ. 2003 Jan 11;326(7380):73
pubmed: 12521968
BMC Public Health. 2008 Sep 24;8:332
pubmed: 18816381
PLoS Med. 2019 May 24;16(5):e1002807
pubmed: 31125354
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Feb;65(2):364-372
pubmed: 27858951
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007 Mar;62(2):P119-25
pubmed: 17379672
J Aging Phys Act. 2018 Jul 1;26(3):390-395
pubmed: 28952864
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014 Jul-Aug;59(1):136-44
pubmed: 24745812
Lancet. 2015 Jun 27;385(9987):2592-9
pubmed: 25865864
Ann Behav Med. 2012 Feb;43(1):101-16
pubmed: 21993844
Age Ageing. 2008 Nov;37(6):634-9
pubmed: 18565980
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992 Sep;40(9):922-35
pubmed: 1512391
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec 12;15:547
pubmed: 26652172
Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(5):672-83
pubmed: 16491323
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Aug;56(8):1390-7
pubmed: 18662214
Inj Prev. 2016 Apr;22(2):153-60
pubmed: 25392367
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Apr;70(7):1050-8
pubmed: 20117865
JAMA. 2014 Apr 2;311(13):1298-9
pubmed: 24691605
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 03;5:67
pubmed: 20815872
Health Serv Res. 2013 Dec;48(6 Pt 2):2134-56
pubmed: 24279835
Aust Health Rev. 2003;26(3):88-97
pubmed: 15368824
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Dec;58(12):2265-74
pubmed: 21143436