Cargando…
An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK
PURPOSE: Process evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29302612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.01.002 |
_version_ | 1783288415641403392 |
---|---|
author | Segrott, Jeremy Murphy, Simon Rothwell, Heather Scourfield, Jonathan Foxcroft, David Gillespie, David Holliday, Jo Hood, Kerenza Hurlow, Claire Morgan-Trimmer, Sarah Phillips, Ceri Reed, Hayley Roberts, Zoe Moore, Laurence |
author_facet | Segrott, Jeremy Murphy, Simon Rothwell, Heather Scourfield, Jonathan Foxcroft, David Gillespie, David Holliday, Jo Hood, Kerenza Hurlow, Claire Morgan-Trimmer, Sarah Phillips, Ceri Reed, Hayley Roberts, Zoe Moore, Laurence |
author_sort | Segrott, Jeremy |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Process evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and how intervention-context interactions influence programme delivery. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation nested within a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10–14 (SFP 10–14) in Wales, UK. It uses Extended Normalisation Process Theory to theorise how interaction between SFP 10–14 and local delivery systems - particularly practitioner commitment/capability and organisational capacity - influenced delivery of intended programme activities: fidelity (adherence to SFP 10–14 content and implementation requirements); dose delivered; dose received (participant engagement); participant recruitment and reach (intervention attendance). METHODS: A mixed methods design was utilised. Fidelity assessment sheets (completed by practitioners), structured observation by researchers, and routine data were used to assess: adherence to programme content; staffing numbers and consistency; recruitment/retention; and group size and composition. Interviews with practitioners explored implementation processes and context. RESULTS: Adherence to programme content was high - with some variation, linked to practitioner commitment to, and understanding of, the intervention’s content and mechanisms. Variation in adherence rates was associated with the extent to which multi-agency delivery team planning meetings were held. Recruitment challenges meant that targets for group size/composition were not always met, but did not affect adherence levels or family engagement. Targets for staffing numbers and consistency were achieved, though capacity within multi-agency networks reduced over time. CONCLUSIONS: Extended Normalisation Process Theory provided a useful framework for assessing implementation and explaining variation by examining intervention-context interactions. Findings highlight the need for process evaluations to consider both the structural and process components of implementation to explain whether programme activities are delivered as intended and why. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5742638 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57426382018-01-02 An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK Segrott, Jeremy Murphy, Simon Rothwell, Heather Scourfield, Jonathan Foxcroft, David Gillespie, David Holliday, Jo Hood, Kerenza Hurlow, Claire Morgan-Trimmer, Sarah Phillips, Ceri Reed, Hayley Roberts, Zoe Moore, Laurence SSM Popul Health Article PURPOSE: Process evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and how intervention-context interactions influence programme delivery. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation nested within a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10–14 (SFP 10–14) in Wales, UK. It uses Extended Normalisation Process Theory to theorise how interaction between SFP 10–14 and local delivery systems - particularly practitioner commitment/capability and organisational capacity - influenced delivery of intended programme activities: fidelity (adherence to SFP 10–14 content and implementation requirements); dose delivered; dose received (participant engagement); participant recruitment and reach (intervention attendance). METHODS: A mixed methods design was utilised. Fidelity assessment sheets (completed by practitioners), structured observation by researchers, and routine data were used to assess: adherence to programme content; staffing numbers and consistency; recruitment/retention; and group size and composition. Interviews with practitioners explored implementation processes and context. RESULTS: Adherence to programme content was high - with some variation, linked to practitioner commitment to, and understanding of, the intervention’s content and mechanisms. Variation in adherence rates was associated with the extent to which multi-agency delivery team planning meetings were held. Recruitment challenges meant that targets for group size/composition were not always met, but did not affect adherence levels or family engagement. Targets for staffing numbers and consistency were achieved, though capacity within multi-agency networks reduced over time. CONCLUSIONS: Extended Normalisation Process Theory provided a useful framework for assessing implementation and explaining variation by examining intervention-context interactions. Findings highlight the need for process evaluations to consider both the structural and process components of implementation to explain whether programme activities are delivered as intended and why. Elsevier 2017-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5742638/ /pubmed/29302612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.01.002 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Segrott, Jeremy Murphy, Simon Rothwell, Heather Scourfield, Jonathan Foxcroft, David Gillespie, David Holliday, Jo Hood, Kerenza Hurlow, Claire Morgan-Trimmer, Sarah Phillips, Ceri Reed, Hayley Roberts, Zoe Moore, Laurence An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK |
title | An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK |
title_full | An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK |
title_fullStr | An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK |
title_full_unstemmed | An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK |
title_short | An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10–14) in Wales, UK |
title_sort | application of extended normalisation process theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: process evaluation of the strengthening families programme (10–14) in wales, uk |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29302612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.01.002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT segrottjeremy anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT murphysimon anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT rothwellheather anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT scourfieldjonathan anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT foxcroftdavid anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT gillespiedavid anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT hollidayjo anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT hoodkerenza anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT hurlowclaire anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT morgantrimmersarah anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT phillipsceri anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT reedhayley anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT robertszoe anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT moorelaurence anapplicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT segrottjeremy applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT murphysimon applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT rothwellheather applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT scourfieldjonathan applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT foxcroftdavid applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT gillespiedavid applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT hollidayjo applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT hoodkerenza applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT hurlowclaire applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT morgantrimmersarah applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT phillipsceri applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT reedhayley applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT robertszoe applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk AT moorelaurence applicationofextendednormalisationprocesstheoryinarandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexsocialinterventionprocessevaluationofthestrengtheningfamiliesprogramme1014inwalesuk |