How Community-Based Teams Use the Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner: Longitudinal Qualitative Field Test Study.
capacity building
community-based exercise programs
implementation planning
implementation science
knowledge mobilization
knowledge translation
rehabilitation
stroke
Journal
JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2022
29 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
12
02
2022
accepted:
21
06
2022
revised:
10
06
2022
entrez:
29
7
2022
pubmed:
30
7
2022
medline:
30
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner guides teams through the process of planning for the implementation of community-based exercise programs for people with stroke, in alignment with implementation science frameworks. The purpose of this study was to conduct a field test with end users to describe how teams used the Planner in real-world conditions; describe the effects of Planner use on participants' implementation-planning knowledge, attitudes, and activities; and identify factors influencing the use of the Planner. This field test study used a longitudinal qualitative design. We recruited teams across Canada who intended to implement a community-based exercise program for people with stroke in the next 6 to 12 months and were willing to use the Planner to guide their work. We completed semistructured interviews at the time of enrollment, monitoring calls every 1 to 2 months, and at the end of the study to learn about implementation-planning work completed and Planner use. The interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Completed Planner steps were plotted onto a timeline for comparison across teams. We enrolled 12 participants (program managers and coordinators, rehabilitation professionals, and fitness professionals) from 5 planning teams. The teams were enrolled in the study between 4 and 14 months, and we conducted 25 interviews. We observed that the teams worked through the planning process in diverse and nonlinear ways, adapted to their context. All teams provided examples of how using the Planner changed their implementation-planning knowledge (eg, knowing the steps), attitudes (eg, valuing community engagement), and activities (eg, hosting stakeholder meetings). We identified team, organizational, and broader contextual factors that hindered and facilitated uptake of the Planner. Participants shared valuable tips from the field to help future teams optimize use of the Planner. The Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner is an adaptable resource that may be used in diverse settings to plan community-based exercise programs for people with stroke. These findings may be informative to others who are developing resources to build the capacity of those working in community-based settings to implement new programs and practices. Future work is needed to monitor the use and understand the effect of using the Planner on exercise program implementation and sustainability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner guides teams through the process of planning for the implementation of community-based exercise programs for people with stroke, in alignment with implementation science frameworks.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to conduct a field test with end users to describe how teams used the Planner in real-world conditions; describe the effects of Planner use on participants' implementation-planning knowledge, attitudes, and activities; and identify factors influencing the use of the Planner.
METHODS
METHODS
This field test study used a longitudinal qualitative design. We recruited teams across Canada who intended to implement a community-based exercise program for people with stroke in the next 6 to 12 months and were willing to use the Planner to guide their work. We completed semistructured interviews at the time of enrollment, monitoring calls every 1 to 2 months, and at the end of the study to learn about implementation-planning work completed and Planner use. The interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Completed Planner steps were plotted onto a timeline for comparison across teams.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We enrolled 12 participants (program managers and coordinators, rehabilitation professionals, and fitness professionals) from 5 planning teams. The teams were enrolled in the study between 4 and 14 months, and we conducted 25 interviews. We observed that the teams worked through the planning process in diverse and nonlinear ways, adapted to their context. All teams provided examples of how using the Planner changed their implementation-planning knowledge (eg, knowing the steps), attitudes (eg, valuing community engagement), and activities (eg, hosting stakeholder meetings). We identified team, organizational, and broader contextual factors that hindered and facilitated uptake of the Planner. Participants shared valuable tips from the field to help future teams optimize use of the Planner.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Stroke Recovery in Motion Implementation Planner is an adaptable resource that may be used in diverse settings to plan community-based exercise programs for people with stroke. These findings may be informative to others who are developing resources to build the capacity of those working in community-based settings to implement new programs and practices. Future work is needed to monitor the use and understand the effect of using the Planner on exercise program implementation and sustainability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35904855
pii: v6i7e37243
doi: 10.2196/37243
pmc: PMC9377454
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e37243Informations de copyright
©Jessica Reszel, Joan van den Hoek, Tram Nguyen, Gayatri Aravind, Mark T Bayley, Marie-Louise Bird, Kate Edwards, Janice J Eng, Jennifer L Moore, Michelle L A Nelson, Michelle Ploughman, Julie Richardson, Nancy M Salbach, Ada Tang, Ian D Graham. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 29.07.2022.
Références
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:27-53
pubmed: 29166243
Health Promot Int. 2009 Dec;24(4):325-33
pubmed: 19819896
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Nov 14;18(1):857
pubmed: 30428882
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 20;3:CD003316
pubmed: 32196635
J Allied Health. 2020 Winter;49(4):258-262
pubmed: 33259570
Implement Sci. 2010 Apr 15;5:28
pubmed: 20398317
Implement Sci. 2020 Oct 30;15(1):97
pubmed: 33126909
JMIR Form Res. 2022 Jul 29;6(7):e37189
pubmed: 35904870
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):624-635
pubmed: 27142266
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 Dec 24;14:121
pubmed: 25539950
Clin Psychol (New York). 2016 Jun;23(2):180-200
pubmed: 29456295
BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 13;5(4):e006808
pubmed: 25869686
Implement Sci. 2013 May 08;8:49
pubmed: 23656884
MedEdPORTAL. 2018 Aug 03;14:10736
pubmed: 30800936
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Feb 06;13:14
pubmed: 23388075
Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1189-208
pubmed: 10591279
Implement Sci. 2018 Jul 30;13(1):103
pubmed: 30060744
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 10;18(1):347
pubmed: 29743068
Transl Behav Med. 2019 Nov 25;9(6):1057-1064
pubmed: 30535343
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Am J Public Health. 2018 Nov;108(S5):S396-S398
pubmed: 30260692
Implement Sci. 2014 Nov 15;9:166
pubmed: 25398428
Implement Sci Commun. 2021 May 26;2(1):55
pubmed: 34039434
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-24
pubmed: 16557505