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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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