Dataset Information

A process evaluation of a worksite vitality intervention among ageing hospital workers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The process evaluation of the Vital@Work intervention was primary aimed at gaining insight into the context, dose delivered, fidelity, reach, dose received, and participants' attitude. Further, the differences between intervention locations were evaluated.

Methods

Eligible for this study were 730 workers, aged ≥ 45 years, from two academic hospitals. Workers randomised to the intervention group (n = 367) received a 6-months intervention consisting a Vitality Exercise Programme (VEP) combined with three visits to a Personal Vitality Coach (PVC), aimed at goal setting, feedback, and problem solving. The VEP consisted of a guided yoga session, a guided workout session, and aerobic exercising without direct face-to-face instruction, all once a week. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire after the intervention, attendance registration forms (i.e. attendance at guided VEP group sessions), and coaching registration forms (filled in by the PVCs).

Results

The dose delivered of the yoga and workout sessions were 72.3% and 96.3%. All PVC visits (100%) were offered. The reach for the yoga sessions, workout sessions and PVC visits was 70.6%, 63.8%, and 89.6%, respectively. When taken these three intervention components together, the reach was 52%. This differed between the two locations (59.2% versus 36.8%). The dose received was for the yoga 10.4 sessions/24 weeks and for the workout 11.1 sessions/24 weeks. The attendance rate, defined as the mean percentage of attended group sessions in relation to the total provided group sessions, for the yoga and workout sessions was 51.7% and 44.8%, respectively. For the yoga sessions this rate was different between the two locations (63.2% versus 46.5%). No differences were found between the locations regarding the workout sessions and PVC visits. Workers attended on average 2.7 PVC visits. Overall, workers were satisfied with the intervention components: 7.5 for yoga sessions, 7.8 for workout sessions, and 6.9 for PVC visits.

Conclusions

The implementation of the intervention was accomplished as planned with respect to the dose delivered. Based on the reach, most workers were willing to attend the guided group sessions and the PVC visits, although there were differences between the locations and between intervention components. Overall, workers were positive about the intervention.

Trial registration

Trial registration NTR1240.

SUBMITTER: Strijk JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3127968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients.DesignExtension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering.SettingGeneral internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals.ParticipantsConvenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs.Implementation strategyTwo-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine.Process evaluation componentsData collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis.Outcome measuresIntervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies.ResultsRecruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs.ConclusionsThe results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge.Trial registration numberISRCTN18427377.

Project description:BackgroundContinuous monitoring of vital signs (CMVS) using wearable wireless sensors is increasingly available to patients in general wards and can improve outcomes and reduce nurse workload. To assess the potential impact of such systems, successful implementation is important. We developed a CMVS intervention and implementation strategy and evaluated its success in 2 general wards.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess and compare intervention fidelity in 2 wards (internal medicine and general surgery) of a large teaching hospital.MethodsA mixed methods sequential explanatory design was used. After thorough training and preparation, CMVS was implemented-in parallel with the standard intermittent manual measurements-and executed for 6 months in each ward. Heart rate and respiratory rate were measured using a chest-worn wearable sensor, and vital sign trends were visualized on a digital platform. Trends were routinely assessed and reported each nursing shift without automated alarms. The primary outcome was intervention fidelity, defined as the proportion of written reports and related nurse activities in case of deviating trends comparing early (months 1-2), mid- (months 3-4), and late (months 5-6) implementation periods. Explanatory interviews with nurses were conducted.ResultsThe implementation strategy was executed as planned. A total of 358 patients were included, resulting in 45,113 monitored hours during 6142 nurse shifts. In total, 10.3% (37/358) of the sensors were replaced prematurely because of technical failure. Mean intervention fidelity was 70.7% (SD 20.4%) and higher in the surgical ward (73.6%, SD 18.1% vs 64.1%, SD 23.7%; P<.001). Fidelity decreased over the implementation period in the internal medicine ward (76%, 57%, and 48% at early, mid-, and late implementation, respectively; P<.001) but not significantly in the surgical ward (76% at early implementation vs 74% at midimplementation [P=.56] vs 70.7% at late implementation [P=.07]). No nursing activities were needed based on vital sign trends for 68.7% (246/358) of the patients. In 174 reports of 31.3% (112/358) of the patients, observed deviating trends led to 101 additional bedside assessments of patients and 73 consultations by physicians. The main themes that emerged during interviews (n=21) included the relative priority of CMVS in nurse work, the importance of nursing assessment, the relatively limited perceived benefits for patient care, and experienced mediocre usability of the technology.ConclusionsWe successfully implemented a system for CMVS at scale in 2 hospital wards, but our results show that intervention fidelity decreased over time, more in the internal medicine ward than in the surgical ward. This decrease appeared to depend on multiple ward-specific factors. Nurses' perceptions regarding the value and benefits of the intervention varied. Implications for optimal implementation of CMVS include engaging nurses early, seamless integration into electronic health records, and sophisticated decision support tools for vital sign trend interpretation.