Dataset Information

Protocol for process evaluation of integration of mental health into primary healthcare in two states in Nigeria: the mhSUN programme.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current international recommendations to address the large treatment gap for mental healthcare in low- and middle-income countries are to scale up integration of mental health into primary care. There are good outcome studies to support this, but less robust evidence for effectively carrying out integration and scale-up of such services, or for understanding how to address contextual issues that routinely arise.

Aims

This protocol is for a process evaluation of a programme called Mental Health Scale Up Nigeria. The study aims are to determine the extent to which the intervention was carried out according to the plans developed (fidelity), to examine the effect of postulated moderating factors and local context, and the perception of the programme by primary care staff and implementers.

Method

We use a theoretical framework for process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council's Guidelines on Process Evaluation. A Theory of Change workshop was carried out in programme development, to highlight relevant factors influencing the process, ensure good adaptation of global normative guidelines and gain buy-in from local stakeholders. We will use mixed methods to examine programme implementation and outcomes, and influence of moderating factors.

Results

Data sources will include the routine health information system, facility records (for staff, medication and infrastructure), log books of intervention activities, supervision records, patient questionnaires and qualitative interviews.

Conclusions

Evidence from this process evaluation will help guide implementers aiming to scale up mental health services in primary care in low- and middle-income countries.

SUBMITTER: Eaton J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8058900 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVisual impairment is a global public health problem, with an estimated 285 million affected globally, of which 43% are due to refractive error. A lack of specialist eye care in low and middle-income countries indicates a new model of care would support a task-shifting model and address this urgent need. We describe the features and results of the process evaluation of a national primary eye care (PEC) programme in Rwanda.MethodsWe used the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework to examine the implementation of the PEC programme, and to determine enablers and challenges to implementation. The process evaluation uses a mixed methods approach, drawing on results from several sources including a survey of 574 attendees at 50 PEC clinics, structured clinical observations of 30 PEC nurses, in-depth interviews with 19 key stakeholders, documentary review and a participatory process evaluation workshop with key stakeholders to review collated evidence and contextualize the results.ResultsStructured clinical assessment indicated that the PEC provided is consistent with the PEC curriculum, with over 90% of the clinical examination processes conducted correctly. In 4 years, programme monitoring data showed that nearly a million PEC eye examinations had been conducted in every health centre in Rwanda, with 2707 nurses trained. The development of the eye health system was an important enabler in the implementation of PEC, where political support allowed key developments such as inclusion of eye-drops on the essential medicines list, the inclusion of PEC on insurance benefits, the integration of PEC indicators on the health management information systems and integration of the PEC curriculum into the general nursing school curriculum. Challenges included high turnover of primary care nurses, lack of clarity and communication on the future funding of the programme, competing priorities for the health sector and sustained supervision to assure quality of care.ConclusionsA model of a national primary eye care programme is presented, with service delivery to all areas in Rwanda. Key learning from this evaluation is the importance of strengthening the eye health care system, together with a strong focus on training primary care nurses using a PEC curriculum.

Project description:IntroductionThe Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) is designed to measure complications after major elective surgery and improve these through feedback of data to clinicians. Previous research suggests that despite the significant resources which go into collecting data for national clinical audits, the information they contain is not always used effectively to improve local services.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a formative process evaluation of PQIP comprising a multisited qualitative study to analyse PQIP's programme theory, barriers, facilitators and wider contextual factors that influence implementation. The research will be carried out with the PQIP project team and six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected according to geographical location, type of hospital, size and level of engagement with PQIP. We will include one Trust which has not expressed interest in the PQIP for comparison and to explore the role of secular trend in any changes in practice. We will use semi-structured interviews (up to 144 in Trusts and 12 with the project team), non-participant observations (up to 150 ?hours) and documentary analysis. We will track the lifecycle of perioperative data, exploring the transformations it undergoes from creation to use. We will use framework analysis with categories both from our research questions and from themes emerging from the data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted from the University College London Research Ethics Committee (ref 10375/001). Permissions to conduct research at NHS Trusts have been granted by local Research and Development offices in coordination with the Health Research Authority. We will follow guidelines for data security, confidentiality and information governance. Findings will be shared at regular time points with the PQIP project team to inform the implementation of the programme, and with participating NHS Trusts to help them reflect on how they currently use data for improvement of perioperative services.

Project description:IntroductionMore than 17% of German children and adolescents have clinically relevant mental health problems (MHP). Typically, general paediatricians are often the first contact for children with MHP, and referrals to specialised care tend to be the standard approach. A statutory health insurance fund developed a programme for children with MHP (Health Coaching (HC)) aiming to offer targeted but low-threshold services. However, little is known about whether HC has the potential for optimising patient care. The aim of the PrimA-QuO study is to examine the effectiveness and the acceptance, barriers and facilitators of all stakeholders of this structured primary care programme for children affected by the most frequently encountered MHP in paediatric practice.Methods and analysisIn this mixed-methods approach, children (n=800; aged 0-17 years) with MHP meeting all inclusion criteria will be identified in the health insurance database according to International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnoses between 2018 and 2019. The qualitative component uses a series of semistructured interviews with programme developers, paediatricians trained in HC, adolescents with MHP treated according to the programme guidelines and their parents. In addition, a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group cohort study will be conducted using an online questionnaire to examine the effects of HC on health-related quality of life of affected children and their families as well as on change in MHP. Children treated according to the HC guidelines form the intervention group, whereas all others serve as controls. Primary data from the cohort study are linked to children's health insurance claims data to calculate the costs of care as proxies for healthcare utilisation. The hypothesis is that HC is an effective and efficient primary care programme with the potential to improve patients' and their families' health outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Grant number 01VSF16032 (funded by the German Innovationsfonds).

Project description:IntroductionOne in three people aged 65 years and over fall each year. The health, economic and personal impact of falls will grow substantially in the coming years due to population ageing. Developing and implementing cost-effective strategies to prevent falls and mobility problems among older people is therefore an urgent public health challenge. StandingTall is a low-cost, unsupervised, home-based balance exercise programme delivered through a computer or tablet. StandingTall has a simple user-interface that incorporates physical and behavioural elements designed to promote compliance. A large randomised controlled trial in 503 community-dwelling older people has shown that StandingTall is safe, has high adherence rates and is effective in improving balance and reducing falls. The current project targets a major need for older people and will address the final steps needed to scale this innovative technology for widespread use by older people across Australia and internationally.Methods and analysisThis project will endeavour to recruit 300 participants across three sites in Australia and 100 participants in the UK. The aim of the study is to evaluate the implementation of StandingTall into the community and health service settings in Australia and the UK. The nested process evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore uptake and acceptability of the StandingTall programme and associated resources. The primary outcome is participant adherence to the StandingTall programme over 6 months.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the South East Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC reference 18/288) in Australia and the North West- Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 268954) in the UK. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences, newsletter articles, social media, talks to clinicians and consumers and meetings with health departments/managers.Trial registration numberACTRN12619001329156.

Project description:IntroductionOver the past three decades, extensive research has been undertaken to understand the elements of what constitutes high quality in healthcare. Yet, much of this research has been conducted on individual elements and their specific challenges. Hence, goals other than understanding the complex of factors and elements that comprises quality in healthcare have been privileged. This lack of progress has led to the conclusion that existing approaches to research are not able to address the inherent complexity of healthcare systems as characterised by a significant degree of performance variability within and across system levels, and what makes them resilient. A shift is, therefore, necessary in such approaches. Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) adopts an approach comprising a comprehensive research programme that models the capacity of healthcare systems and stakeholders to adapt to changes, variations and/or disruptions: that is, resilience. As such, RiH offers a fresh approach capable of capturing and illuminating the complexity of healthcare and how high-quality care can be understood and advanced.Methods and analysisMethodologically, to illuminate what constitutes quality in healthcare, it is necessary to go beyond single-site, case-based studies. Instead, there is a need to engage in multi-site, cross-national studies and engage in long-term multidisciplinary collaboration between national and international researchers interacting with multiple healthcare stakeholders. By adopting such processes, multiple partners and a multidisciplinary orientation, the 5-year RiH research programme aims to confront these challenges and accelerate current understandings about and approaches to researching healthcare quality.The RiH research programme adopts a longitudinal collaborative interactive design to capture and illuminate resilience as part of healthcare quality in different healthcare settings in Norway and in five other countries. It combines a meta-analysis of detailed empirical research in Norway with cross-country comparison from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK. Through establishing an RiH framework, the programme will identify processes with outcomes that aim to capture how high-quality healthcare provisions are achieved. A collaborative learning framework centred on engagement aims to systematically translate research findings into practice through co-construction processes with partners and stakeholders.Ethics and disseminationThe RiH research programme is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (No. 864334). The empirical projects selected for inclusion in this longitudinal research programme have been approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data or the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. The RiH research programme has an embedded publication and dissemination strategy focusing on the progressive sharing of scientific knowledge, information and results, and on engaging with the public, including relevant patient and stakeholder representatives. The findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, PhD dissertations, presentations at national and international conferences, and through social media, newsletters and the popular media.

Project description:BackgroundGirls Active is a physical activity programme, delivered in UK secondary schools, with the aim of increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in girls aged 11-14 years. This study presents the process evaluation as part of a 14-month cluster randomised controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Girls Active programme and which showed no difference in the primary outcome (MVPA at 14 months) between intervention and control arms.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data were collected from intervention schools over the course of the 14 month trial. Feedback forms and attendance records were completed at the end of all teacher and peer leader training and review days. At 7- and 14-months, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the lead Girls Active teacher in all intervention schools (n = 10) and staff from the intervention provider (n = 4) and hub school (n = 1). At 14 months, separate focus groups with peer leaders (n = 8 schools), girls who participated in the evaluation component of the trial (n = 8 schools), and a sample of boys (n = 6 schools) were conducted. All participants in the intervention schools were asked to complete an exit survey at 14 months. Teachers (intervention and control) completed a school environment questionnaire at baseline, 7- and 14-months.ResultsThe Girls Active programme, i.e., the training and resources, appeared to be well received by teachers and pupils. Factors that may have contributed to the lack of effectiveness include: some initial uncertainty by teachers as to what to do following the initial training, a predominant focus on support activities (e.g., gathering opinions) rather than actual physical activity provision, and school-level constraints that impeded implementation.ConclusionsGirls Active and what it was trying to achieve was valued by schools. The programme could be improved by providing greater guidance to teachers throughout, the setting of timelines, and providing formal training to peer leaders.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN10688342 . Registered 12 January 2015.