Dataset Information

Process evaluation of complex interventions tested in randomised controlled trials in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The effectiveness of complex interventions for the management of musculoskeletal disorders has been estimated in many randomised clinical trials (RCTs). These trials inform which interventions are the most effective, however they do not always inform how an intervention achieved its clinical outcomes, nor how and what elements of an intervention were delivered to patients. Such information is useful for translating findings into clinical practice. A few process evaluation studies have been conducted alongside RCTs and a variety of methods have been used. To gain a better understanding of current practices of process evaluation in RCTs in musculoskeletal disorders, this systematic review is designed to answer the following research question: How are process evaluation of complex interventions tested in RCTs in musculoskeletal disorders being conducted? METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will systematically search seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane database) from the date of inception to August 2018 for studies on process evaluation of RCTs on non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of musculoskeletal disorders. We will include qualitative and quantitative studies conducted alongside RCTs, reported with the RCTs or separate studies that assessed interventions for musculoskeletal disorders. Two reviewers will screen abstracts and apply prespecified inclusion criteria to identify relevant studies, extract the data and assess the risk of bias within included studies. We will follow recommendations from the 'Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series' when assessing methodological strengths and limitations of included studies. We will use a narrative synthesis to describe findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required as this review will not collect original data. Findings from this systematic review will be presented at a scientific conference and published in a peer reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018109600.

SUBMITTER: Ribeiro DC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6530329 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Process evaluation of complex interventions tested in randomised controlled trials in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review protocol.

Ribeiro Daniel C DC Abbott J Haxby JH Sharma Saurab S Lamb Sarah E SE

BMJ open 20190519 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>The effectiveness of complex interventions for the management of musculoskeletal disorders has been estimated in many randomised clinical trials (RCTs). These trials inform which interventions are the most effective, however they do not always inform how an intervention achieved its clinical outcomes, nor how and what elements of an intervention were delivered to patients. Such information is useful for translating findings into clinical practice. A few process evaluation st ...[more]

PMID: 31110107

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNew Interventions for independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS)-Family is an Alzheimer's Society funded new manualised, multimodal psychosocial intervention to support people living with dementia (PLWD) to achieve goals that they and their family carers set, towards living as independently and as well as possible at home for longer. This process evaluation will be embedded within the NIDUS-Family Randomised Controlled Trial intervention-arm (n=199), testing how the intervention influences change, as measured by goal attainment. The evaluation will test, refine and develop the NIDUS-Family theoretical model, associated causal assumptions and logic model to identify key mechanisms of impact, implementation and contextual factors influencing the intervention's effectiveness. Findings will inform how the programme is implemented in practice.Methods and analysisThe process evaluation will be theory driven and apply a convergent mixed-methods design. Dyads (PLWD and family carer) will be purposively sampled based on high or low Goal Attainment Scaling scores (trial primary outcome). Qualitative interviews with dyads (approx. n=30) and their respective facilitators post-trial will explore their experiences of receiving and delivering the intervention. Interviews will be iteratively thematically analysed. Matching observational quantitative data will be collected concurrently from videorecordings and/or audiorecordings of NIDUS-Family dyad trial sessions. Further quantitative data will be collected through an acceptability questionnaire for all intervention-arm dyads (n=199). Mixed-method integration will use an interactive analysis strategy, considering qualitative and quantitative findings through mixed-method matrix for dyadic level 'case studies', and a joint display for 'population' level analysis and interpretation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received from Camden & Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (REC). Study reference: 19/LO/1667. IRAS project ID: 271 363. This work is carried out within the UCL Alzheimer's Society Centre of Excellence (grant 300) for Independence at home, NIDUS programme.Findings will be disseminated through publications and conferences, and as recommendations for the implementation study and strategy.Trial registration numberISRCTN11425138.

Project description:IntroductionPeople with spinal cord injuries in low-income and middle-income countries are highly vulnerable to life-threatening complications in the period immediately after discharge from hospital. We are conducting a randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh to determine whether all-cause mortality at 2 years can be reduced if health professionals regularly ring and visit participants in their homes following discharge. We will conduct a process evaluation alongside the trial to explain the trial results and determine the feasibility of scaling this intervention up in low-income and middle-income countries if it is found to be effective.Methods and analysisOur process evaluation is based on the Realist and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance frameworks. We will use a mixed methods approach that uses both qualitative and quantitative data. For example, we will audit a sample of telephone interactions between intervention participants and the healthcare professionals, and we will conduct semistructured interviews with people reflective of various interest groups. Quantitative data will also be collected to determine the number and length of interactions between the healthcare professionals and participants, the types of issues identified during each interaction and the nature of the support and advice provided by the healthcare professionals. All quantitative and qualitative data will be analysed iteratively before the final analysis of the trial results. These data will then be triangulated with the final results of the primary outcome.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee at the site in Bangladesh and from the University of Sydney, Australia. The study will be conducted in compliance with all stipulations of its protocol, the conditions of ethics committee approval and the relevant regulatory bodies. The results of the trial will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12615000630516.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:India has high prevalence of hypertension but low awareness, treatment and control rate. A cluster randomised trial entitled 'm-Power Heart Project' is being implemented to test the effectiveness of a nurse care coordinator (NCC) led complex intervention to address uncontrolled hypertension in the community health centres (CHCs). The trial's process evaluation will assess the fidelity and quality of implementation, clarify the causal mechanisms and identify the contextual factors associated with variation in the outcomes. The trial will use a theory-based mixed-methods process evaluation, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The process evaluation will be conducted in the CHCs of Visakhapatnam (southern India). The key stakeholders involved in the intervention development and implementation will be included as participants. In-depth interviews will be conducted with intervention developers, doctors, NCCs and health department officials and focus groups with patients and their caregivers. NCC training will be evaluated using Kirkpatrick's model for training evaluation. Key process evaluation indicators (number of patients recruited and retained; concordance between the treatment plans generated by the electronic decision support system and treatment prescribed by the doctor and so on) will be assessed. Fidelity will be assessed using Borrelli et al's framework. Qualitative data will be analysed using the template analysis technique. Quantitative data will be summarised as medians (IQR), means (SD) and proportions as appropriate. Mixed-methods analysis will be conducted to assess if the variation in the mean reduction of systolic blood pressure between the intervention CHCs is influenced by patient satisfaction, training outcome, attitude of doctors, patients and NCCs about the intervention, process indicators etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committees at Public Health Foundation of India and Deakin University. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03164317; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of process evaluations is a growing area of interest in research groups working on complex interventions. This methodology tries to understand how the intervention was implemented to inform policy and practice. A recent systematic review by Liu et al. on process evaluations of complex interventions addressing non-communicable diseases found few studies in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC) because it was restricted to randomized controlled trials, primary healthcare level and non-communicable diseases. Yet, LMICs face different barriers to implement interventions in comparison to high-income countries such as limited human resources, access to health care and skills of health workers to treat chronic conditions especially at primary health care level. Therefore, understanding the challenges of interventions for non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases (diseases that affect poor populations and have chronic sequelae) will be important to improve how process evaluation is designed, conducted and used in research projects in LMICs. For these reasons, in comparison to the study of Liu et al., the current study will expand the search strategy to include different study designs, languages and settings.ObjectiveMap research using process evaluation in the areas of non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases to inform the gaps in the design and conduct of this type of research in LMICs.MethodsScoping review of process evaluation studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of complex interventions implemented in LMICs including participants with non-communicable diseases or neglected tropical diseases and their health care providers (physicians, nurses, technicians and others) related to achieve better health for all through reforms in universal coverage, public policy, service delivery and leadership. The aspects that will be evaluated are as follows: (i) available evidence of process evaluation in the areas of non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases such as frameworks and theories, (ii) methods applied to conduct process evaluations and (iii) gaps between the design of the intervention and its implementation that were identified through the process evaluation. Studies published from January 2008. Exclusion criteria are as follows: not peer reviewed articles, not a report based on empirical research, not reported in English or Spanish or Portuguese or French, reviews and non-human research.DiscussionThis scoping review will map the evidence of process evaluations conducted in LMICs. It will also identify the methods they used to collect and interpret data, how different theories and frameworks were used and lessons from the implementation of complex interventions. This information will allow researchers to conduct better process evaluations considering special characteristics from countries with limited human resources, scarce data available and limited access to health care.

Project description:IntroductionIn India about 95% of individuals who need treatment for common mental disorders like depression, stress and anxiety and substance use are unable to access care. Stigma associated with help seeking and lack of trained mental health professionals are important barriers in accessing mental healthcare. Systematic Medical Appraisal, Referral and Treatment (SMART) Mental Health integrates a community-level stigma reduction campaign and task sharing with the help of a mobile-enabled electronic decision support system (EDSS)-to reduce psychiatric morbidity due to stress, depression and self-harm in high-risk individuals. This paper presents and discusses the protocol for process evaluation of SMART Mental Health.Methods and analysisThe process evaluation will use mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate implementation fidelity and identify facilitators of and barriers to implementation of the intervention. Case studies of six intervention and two control clusters will be used. Quantitative data sources will include usage analytics extracted from the mHealth platform for the trial. Qualitative data sources will include focus group discussions and interviews with recruited participants, primary health centre doctors, community health workers (Accredited Social Health Activits) who participated in the project and local community leaders. The design and analysis will be guided by Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, and the normalisation process theory.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee of the George Institute for Global Health, India and the Institutional Ethics Committee, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, stakeholder meetings, digital and social media platforms.Trial registration numberCTRI/2018/08/015355.

Project description:BackgroundINTEVAL_Spain was a complex workplace intervention to prevent and manage musculoskeletal pain among nursing staff. Process evaluations can be especially useful for complex and multifaceted interventions through identifying the success or failure factors of an intervention to improve the intervention implementation.ObjectivesThis study performed a process evaluation of INTEVAL_Spain and aimed to examine whether the intervention was conducted according to the protocol, to investigate the fulfilment of expectations and the satisfaction of workers.MethodsThe intervention was a two-armed cluster randomized controlled trial and lasted 1 year. The process evaluation included quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods were used to address the indicators of Steckler and Linnan's framework. Data on recruitment was collected through a baseline questionnaire for the intervention and the control group. Reach and dose received were collected through participation sheets, dose delivered and fidelity through internal registries, and fulfilment of expectations and satisfaction were collected with two questions at 12-months follow-up. Qualitative methods were used for a content analysis of discussion groups at the end of the intervention led by an external moderator to explore satisfaction and recommendations. The general communication and activities were discussed, and final recommendations were agreed on. Data were synthesized and results were reported thematically.ResultsThe study was performed in two Spanish hospitals during 2016-2017 and 257 workers participated. Recruitment was 62 and 51% for the intervention and the control group, respectively. The reach of the activities ranged from 96% for participatory ergonomics to 5% for healthy diet. The number of sessions offered ranged from 60 sessions for Nordic walking to one session for healthy diet. Fidelity of workers ranged from 100% for healthy diet and 79% for participatory ergonomics, to 42 and 39% for Nordic walking and case management, respectively. Lowest fidelity of providers was 75% for case management and 82% for Nordic walking. Fulfilment of expectations and satisfaction ranged from 6.6/10 and 7.6/10, respectively, for case management to 10/10 together for the healthy diet session. Discussion groups revealed several limitations for most of the activities, mainly focused on a lack of communication between the Champion (coordinator) and the workers.ConclusionsThis process evaluation showed that the implementation of INTEVAL_Spain was predominantly carried out as intended. Process indicators differed depending on the activity. Several recommendations to improve the intervention implementation process are proposed.Trial registrationISRCTN15780649 .

Dataset Information

Process evaluation of complex interventions tested in randomised controlled trials in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review protocol.

Publications

Process evaluation of complex interventions tested in randomised controlled trials in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets