Process evaluation of the Invictus Pathways Program

INTRODUCTION: UniSA’s Invictus Pathways Program (IPP), a service program, was originally developed to assist veterans to train for and participate in the Invictus Games. More recently, the scope of the IPP has widened to support and improve wellbeing and facilitate post traumatic growth and recovery among participants who are living with physical and mental health injuries and conditions. This paper describes the components of the IPP and reports its process evaluation. METHODS: Underpinned by a pragmatic approach, data related to participant and student involvement in the IPP, the number of participant training sessions, session attendance, program activities and events, and program fidelity were compiled from process documentation that had been collected between 2017 and 2020, inclusive. Following ethics approval, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the IPP, members of their family support network, and university staff to understand the operations of the IPP and satisfaction with the program. FINDINGS: There was high fidelity for the student-led exercise training aspects of IPP; however, data collection relevant to participants’ psychological outcomes, and non-training IPP events and activities did not always occur as intended. Between 2017 and 2020, 53 veterans had participated in or were still participating in the IPP, and 63 allied health students had completed placements as student trainers. Fifty-three individual training sessions were delivered in 2017, increasing to 1,024 in 2020. Seventy-one interviews were completed with key IPP stakeholders. The qualitative analysis identified four higher order themes: Implementation and fidelity of the IPP, Satisfaction with the IPP, Areas of the IPP requiring improvement and suggestions for change, and Sustainability of the IPP. Satisfaction was generally high for the IPP, although there were factors that negatively impacted the experience for some participants and their family support network. Suggestions for improvement to program components and delivery aspects were made during the interviews, and the precariousness of IPP funding and sustainability was raised as an ongoing concern. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation has demonstrated that the physical activity training components of the IPP were delivered with high levels of fidelity, and that satisfaction with the IPP is mostly high, although there are areas that could be improved. There is a need for a more structured approach to the ongoing evaluation of the IPP. This includes ensuring that program staff have a shared understanding of the purpose of evaluation activities and that these activities occur as intended. Beyond this is the need to secure funding to support the sustainability of the IPP, so that it can continue to contribute to the wellbeing of veterans living with physical and mental health conditions, and their families.