Dataset Information

The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Successful implementation and long-term maintenance of healthy supermarkets initiatives are crucial to achieving potential population health benefits. Understanding barriers and enablers of implementation of real-world trials will enhance wide-scale implementation. This process evaluation of a healthy supermarket intervention sought to describe (i) customer, retailer and stakeholder perspectives on the intervention; (ii) intervention implementation; and (iii) implementation barriers and enablers.

Methods

Eat Well @ IGA was a 12-month randomised controlled trial conducted in 11 Independent Grocers of Australia (IGA) chain supermarkets in regional Victoria, Australia (5 intervention and 6 wait-listed control stores). Intervention components included trolley and basket signage, local area and in-store promotion, and shelf tags highlighting the healthiest packaged foods. A sequential mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken. Customer exit surveys investigated demographics, and intervention recall and perceptions. Logistic mixed-models estimated associations between customer responses and demographics, with store as random effect. Supermarket staff surveys investigated staff demographics, interactions with customers, and intervention component feedback. Semi-structured stakeholder interviews with local government, retail and academic partners explored intervention perceptions, and factors which enabled or inhibited implementation, maintenance and scalability. Interviews were inductively coded to identify key themes.

Results

Of 500 customers surveyed, 33%[95%CI:23,44] recalled the Eat Well @ IGA brand and 97%[95%CI:93,99] agreed that IGA should continue its efforts to encourage healthy eating. The 82 staff surveyed demonstrated very favourable intervention perceptions. Themes from 19 interviews included that business models favour sales of unhealthy foods, and that stakeholder collaboration was crucial to intervention design and implementation. Staff surveys and interviews highlighted the need to minimise staff time for project maintenance and to regularly refresh intervention materials to increase and maintain salience among customers.

Conclusions

This process evaluation found that interventions to promote healthy diets in supermarkets can be perceived as beneficial by retailers, customers, and government partners provided that barriers including staff time and intervention salience are addressed. Collaborative partnerships in intervention design and implementation, including retailers, governments, and academics, show potential for encouraging long-term sustainability of interventions.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN37395231 Registered 4 May 2017.

SUBMITTER: Blake MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7953771 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.

Blake Miranda R MR Sacks Gary G Zorbas Christina C Marshall Josephine J Orellana Liliana L Brown Amy K AK Moodie Marj M Ni Mhurchu Cliona C Ananthapavan Jaithri J Etilé Fabrice F Cameron Adrian J AJ

The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity 20210312 1

<h4>Background</h4>Successful implementation and long-term maintenance of healthy supermarkets initiatives are crucial to achieving potential population health benefits. Understanding barriers and enablers of implementation of real-world trials will enhance wide-scale implementation. This process evaluation of a healthy supermarket intervention sought to describe (i) customer, retailer and stakeholder perspectives on the intervention; (ii) intervention implementation; and (iii) implementation ba ...[more]

PMID: 33712022

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) was a novel school-located intervention for 9-10 year olds, designed to prevent obesity by changing patterns of child behaviour through the creation of supportive school and home environments using dynamic and creative delivery methods. This paper reports on both the quantitative and qualitative data regarding the implementation of the HeLP intervention in the definitive cluster randomised controlled trial, which was part of the wider process evaluation. METHODS:Mixed methods were used to collect data on intervention uptake, fidelity of delivery in terms of content and quality of delivery of the intervention, as well as school and child engagement with the programme. Data were collected using registers of attendance, observations and checklists, field notes, focus groups with children and semi-structured interviews with teachers. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:All 16 intervention schools received a complete or near complete programme (94-100%), which was delivered in the spirit in which it had been designed. Of the 676 children in the intervention schools, over 90% of children participated in each phase of HeLP; 92% of children across the socio-economic spectrum were deemed to be engaged with HeLP and qualitative data revealed a high level of enjoyment by all children, particularly to the interactive drama workshops. Further evidence of child engagment with the programme was demonstrated by children's clear understanding of programme messages around marketing, moderation and food labelling. Thirteen of the intervention schools were deemed to be fully engaged with HeLP and qualitative data revealed a high level of teacher 'buy in', due to the programme's compatability with the National Curriculum, level of teacher support and use of innovative and creative delivery methods by external drama practitioners. CONCLUSION:Our trial shows that it is possible to successfully scale up complex school-based interventions, engage schools and children across the socio-economic spectrum and deliver an intervention as designed. As programme integrity was maintained throughout the HeLP trial, across all intervention schools, we can be confident that the trial findings are a true reflection of the effectiveness of the intervention, enabling policy recommendations to be made. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN15811706.

Project description:IntroductionPrimary care interventions are often multicomponent, with several targets (eg, patients and healthcare professionals). Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a novel primary care-based model of long-term stroke care involving a review of stroke-related needs, a self-management programme, a direct point of contact in general practice, enhanced communication between care services, and a directory of national and local community services, currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Informed by Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, this protocol outlines the process evaluation of IPCAS within this RCT. The process evaluation aimed to explore how the intervention was delivered in context and how participants engaged with the intervention.Methods and analysisMixed methods will be used: (1) design: intervention content will be compared with 'usual care'; (2) training: intervention training sessions will be audio/video-recorded where feasible; (3) delivery: healthcare professional self-reports, audio recordings of intervention delivery and observations of My Life After Stroke course (10% of reviews and sessions) will be coded separately; semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals; (4) receipt and (5) enactment: where available, structured stroke review records will be analysed quantitatively; semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of study participants. Self-reports, observations and audio/video recordings will be coded and scored using specifically developed checklists. Semistructured interviews will be analysed thematically. Data will be analysed iteratively, independent of primary endpoint analysis.Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion was gained from Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds NHS Research Ethics Committee (19 December 2017, 17/YH/0441). Study results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03353519; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundBronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users' perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data.MethodsA pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use.ConclusionOur targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415 .

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:BACKGROUND:Although the effects of probiotics on the immune system have been extensively evaluated under disease states, their role in healthy situations remains unclear, since changes are hardly expected under immunological homeostasis. EFSA indicates that vaccination protocols could be used to evaluate the potential role of probiotics to improve the immune response against antigen challenges. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus coryniformis CECT5711 (Lc) on the specific immunity of healthy volunteers undergoing vaccination with Hepatitis A virus (HAV). METHODS:One hundred twenty-three healthy adults were randomised into three groups to follow a 6-week (wk) intervention and all received an intramuscular HAV vaccine 2 weeks after starting the intervention: 1) PRO1 received Lc for 2weeks (1 capsule/day; 3?×?109 CFU/capsule) and placebo capsules after vaccination; 2) PRO2 received a daily capsule of Lc (3?×?109 cfu/day) before and after the challenge; 3) Control group (C) received a daily placebo capsule before and after the vaccine. Blood samples were collected at the beginning (visit 1; V1) and after 2 (V2) and 6 weeks (V3) of the intervention. At each visit, lymphocyte subset counts and cytokine levels were analysed. Specific HAV antibodies were analysed at V1 and V3. To evaluate differences between groups, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test were used regarding lymphocyte subset counts and specific HAV antibodies production, and Friedman test of related samples and Kendall concordance coefficient for cytokines production. Chi square test was used to analyse seroconversion rates. RESULTS:Specific HAV antibodies were significantly higher in PRO1 (50.54?±?29.57) compared to C (36.23?±?16.45) (P?=?0.017) and showed an intermediate value in PRO2 (41.61?±?15.74). Seroconversion rates were similar in the three groups (97.3, 92.3 and 97.4% in C, PRO1 and PRO2 respectively). Memory T-helper lymphocytes increased in V3 vs. V1 (P?=?0.032) in PRO2. No differences were found in cytokine concentrations. CONCLUSION:Mixed results have been found regarding the usefulness of Lc supplementation to increase the antigen-specific antibody response to an immune challenge. Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT Number 2016-000183-42. Registered 19 January 2016. Retrospectively registered.

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:BackgroundThe STADPLAN study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial including 27 home care services in Germany. It assesses the effect of an advance care planning (ACP) intervention delivered by trained nurses to older care-dependent patients. Patients received two ACP conversations and an information brochure. Nurses were educated through a two-day programme and topic guides structuring the conversations. Objectives of the process evaluation were to determine: [1] whether the intervention was implemented as planned, [2] which change mechanisms were observed, [3] whether targeted process outcomes were achieved and [4] in which way contextual factors influenced the implementation process.MethodsThe process evaluation is based on a mixed methods approach following the recommendations of the UK-MRC framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Qualitative and quantitative assessments were developed and analysed guided by a logic model comprising intervention, participants, mechanisms of change and context factors. The results of the main trial will be published elsewhere.ResultsEducational programme and topic guides were mostly implemented as planned and resulted in motivation, knowledge, and perceived competencies to facilitate ACP conversations in nurses. Deviances in the performance of ACP conversations indicated patients' varied individual needs, but also obstacles like reluctance of patients and caregivers to participate actively and time constraints of nurse facilitators. Patients and caregivers reported increased awareness of ACP, planning and other activities indicating that targeted process outcomes could be achieved. The relevance of multifaceted contextual factors acting as barriers or facilitators for the engagement in ACP interventions on the individual, organisational and macro level was evident.ConclusionsThe process evaluation elicits obstacles and achievements of the ACP intervention. The logic model organised a plethora of mixed methods data into a holistic picture of multifaceted results. Nurses as ACP facilitators in home care can fulfil a crucial initiating role based on a trusting relationship with their patients. To support older care-dependent people's ACP engagement, access should be simplified. Furthermore, education for nurse facilitators and sufficient resources for service provision are needed. Independent of monetary reimbursement, healthcare providers must respect patients' choice for or against any ACP intervention.Ethics and trial registrationApproved by the Ethics Committees of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Ref.-No. 2019-045), Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg (Ref.-No. 2019-024), and University of Lübeck (Ref.-No. 19-080).German clinical trials registerDRKS00016886. Registered retrospectively 04/06/2019, first participant included 29/05/2019.

Dataset Information

The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets