Cargando…
Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section
BACKGROUND: Complex interventions encompassing several interconnecting and interacting components can be challenging to evaluate. Examining the underlying trial processes while an intervention is being tested can assist in explaining why an intervention was effective (or not). This paper describes a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756437/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29304837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2401-x |
_version_ | 1783290731334467584 |
---|---|
author | Healy, Patricia Smith, Valerie Savage, Gerard Clarke, Mike Devane, Declan Gross, Mechthild M. Morano, Sandra Daly, Deirdre Grylka-Baeschlin, Susanne Nicoletti, Jane Sinclair, Marlene Maguire, Rebekah Carroll, Margaret Begley, Cecily |
author_facet | Healy, Patricia Smith, Valerie Savage, Gerard Clarke, Mike Devane, Declan Gross, Mechthild M. Morano, Sandra Daly, Deirdre Grylka-Baeschlin, Susanne Nicoletti, Jane Sinclair, Marlene Maguire, Rebekah Carroll, Margaret Begley, Cecily |
author_sort | Healy, Patricia |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Complex interventions encompassing several interconnecting and interacting components can be challenging to evaluate. Examining the underlying trial processes while an intervention is being tested can assist in explaining why an intervention was effective (or not). This paper describes a process evaluation of a pan-European cluster randomised controlled trial, OptiBIRTH (undertaken in Ireland, Italy and Germany), that successfully used both quantitative and qualitative methods to enhance understanding of the underlying trial mechanisms and their effect on the trial outcome. METHODS: We carried out a mixed methods process evaluation. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from observation of the implementation of the intervention in practice to determine whether it was delivered according to the original protocol. Data were examined to assess the delivery of the various components of the intervention and the receipt of the intervention by key stakeholders (pregnant women, midwives, obstetricians). Using ethnography, an exploration of perceived experiences from a range of recipients was conducted to understand the perspective of both those delivering and those receiving the intervention. RESULTS: Engagement by stakeholders with the different components of the intervention varied from minimal intensity of women’s engagement with antenatal classes, to moderate intensity of engagement with online resources, to high intensity of clinicians’ exposure to the education sessions provided. The ethnography determined that, although the overall culture in the intervention site did not change, smaller, more individual cultural changes were observed. The fidelity of the delivery of the intervention scored average quality marks of 80% and above on repeat assessments. CONCLUSION: Nesting a process evaluation within the trial enabled the observation of the mode of action of the intervention in its practice context and ensured that the intervention was delivered with a good level of consistency. Implementation problems were identified as they arose and were addressed accordingly. When dealing with a complex intervention, collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data, as we did, can greatly enhance the process evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials Register, ISRCTN10612254. Registered on 3 April 2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2401-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5756437 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57564372018-01-09 Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section Healy, Patricia Smith, Valerie Savage, Gerard Clarke, Mike Devane, Declan Gross, Mechthild M. Morano, Sandra Daly, Deirdre Grylka-Baeschlin, Susanne Nicoletti, Jane Sinclair, Marlene Maguire, Rebekah Carroll, Margaret Begley, Cecily Trials Methodology BACKGROUND: Complex interventions encompassing several interconnecting and interacting components can be challenging to evaluate. Examining the underlying trial processes while an intervention is being tested can assist in explaining why an intervention was effective (or not). This paper describes a process evaluation of a pan-European cluster randomised controlled trial, OptiBIRTH (undertaken in Ireland, Italy and Germany), that successfully used both quantitative and qualitative methods to enhance understanding of the underlying trial mechanisms and their effect on the trial outcome. METHODS: We carried out a mixed methods process evaluation. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from observation of the implementation of the intervention in practice to determine whether it was delivered according to the original protocol. Data were examined to assess the delivery of the various components of the intervention and the receipt of the intervention by key stakeholders (pregnant women, midwives, obstetricians). Using ethnography, an exploration of perceived experiences from a range of recipients was conducted to understand the perspective of both those delivering and those receiving the intervention. RESULTS: Engagement by stakeholders with the different components of the intervention varied from minimal intensity of women’s engagement with antenatal classes, to moderate intensity of engagement with online resources, to high intensity of clinicians’ exposure to the education sessions provided. The ethnography determined that, although the overall culture in the intervention site did not change, smaller, more individual cultural changes were observed. The fidelity of the delivery of the intervention scored average quality marks of 80% and above on repeat assessments. CONCLUSION: Nesting a process evaluation within the trial enabled the observation of the mode of action of the intervention in its practice context and ensured that the intervention was delivered with a good level of consistency. Implementation problems were identified as they arose and were addressed accordingly. When dealing with a complex intervention, collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data, as we did, can greatly enhance the process evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials Register, ISRCTN10612254. Registered on 3 April 2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2401-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5756437/ /pubmed/29304837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2401-x Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Healy, Patricia Smith, Valerie Savage, Gerard Clarke, Mike Devane, Declan Gross, Mechthild M. Morano, Sandra Daly, Deirdre Grylka-Baeschlin, Susanne Nicoletti, Jane Sinclair, Marlene Maguire, Rebekah Carroll, Margaret Begley, Cecily Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section |
title | Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section |
title_full | Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section |
title_fullStr | Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section |
title_full_unstemmed | Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section |
title_short | Process evaluation for OptiBIRTH, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section |
title_sort | process evaluation for optibirth, a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention designed to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean section |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756437/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29304837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2401-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT healypatricia processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT smithvalerie processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT savagegerard processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT clarkemike processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT devanedeclan processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT grossmechthildm processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT moranosandra processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT dalydeirdre processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT grylkabaeschlinsusanne processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT nicolettijane processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT sinclairmarlene processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT maguirerebekah processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT carrollmargaret processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection AT begleycecily processevaluationforoptibirtharandomisedcontrolledtrialofacomplexinterventiondesignedtoincreaseratesofvaginalbirthaftercaesareansection |