Cargando…

How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation

OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) the extent to which a multicomponent intervention addressed determinants of the desired behaviours (ie, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and cardiovascular medications), (2) the associated mechanism(s) of action and (3) how future interventions might be better desi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Desveaux, Laura, Saragosa, Marianne, Russell, Kirstie, McCleary, Nicola, Presseau, Justin, Witteman, Holly O, Schwalm, J-D, Ivers, Noah Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32883724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036750
_version_ 1783579213098385408
author Desveaux, Laura
Saragosa, Marianne
Russell, Kirstie
McCleary, Nicola
Presseau, Justin
Witteman, Holly O
Schwalm, J-D
Ivers, Noah Michael
author_facet Desveaux, Laura
Saragosa, Marianne
Russell, Kirstie
McCleary, Nicola
Presseau, Justin
Witteman, Holly O
Schwalm, J-D
Ivers, Noah Michael
author_sort Desveaux, Laura
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) the extent to which a multicomponent intervention addressed determinants of the desired behaviours (ie, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and cardiovascular medications), (2) the associated mechanism(s) of action and (3) how future interventions might be better designed to meet the needs of this patient population. DESIGN: A qualitative evaluation embedded within a multicentre randomised trial, involving purposive semistructured interviews. SETTING: Nine cardiac centres in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants were stratified according to the trial’s primary outcomes of engagement and adherence, resulting in three groups: (1) engaged, adherence outcome positive, (2) engaged, adherence outcome negative and (3) did not engage, adherence outcome negative. Participants who did not engage but had positive adherence outcomes were excluded. Individual domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework were applied as deductive codes and findings were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were interviewed. Participants who were engaged with positive adherence outcomes attributed their success to the intervention’s ability to activate determinants including behavioural regulation and knowledge, which encouraged an increase in self-monitoring behaviour and awareness of available supports, as well as reinforcement and social influences. The behaviour of those with negative adherence outcomes was driven by beliefs about consequences, emotions and identity. As currently designed, the intervention failed to target these determinants for this subset of participants, resulting in partial engagement and poor adherence outcomes. CONCLUSION: The intervention facilitated CR adherence through reinforcement, behavioural regulation, the provision of knowledge and social influence. To reach a broader and more diverse population, future iterations of the intervention should target aberrant beliefs about consequences, memory and decision-making and emotion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov registry; NCT02382731
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7473621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74736212020-09-16 How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation Desveaux, Laura Saragosa, Marianne Russell, Kirstie McCleary, Nicola Presseau, Justin Witteman, Holly O Schwalm, J-D Ivers, Noah Michael BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) the extent to which a multicomponent intervention addressed determinants of the desired behaviours (ie, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and cardiovascular medications), (2) the associated mechanism(s) of action and (3) how future interventions might be better designed to meet the needs of this patient population. DESIGN: A qualitative evaluation embedded within a multicentre randomised trial, involving purposive semistructured interviews. SETTING: Nine cardiac centres in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants were stratified according to the trial’s primary outcomes of engagement and adherence, resulting in three groups: (1) engaged, adherence outcome positive, (2) engaged, adherence outcome negative and (3) did not engage, adherence outcome negative. Participants who did not engage but had positive adherence outcomes were excluded. Individual domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework were applied as deductive codes and findings were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were interviewed. Participants who were engaged with positive adherence outcomes attributed their success to the intervention’s ability to activate determinants including behavioural regulation and knowledge, which encouraged an increase in self-monitoring behaviour and awareness of available supports, as well as reinforcement and social influences. The behaviour of those with negative adherence outcomes was driven by beliefs about consequences, emotions and identity. As currently designed, the intervention failed to target these determinants for this subset of participants, resulting in partial engagement and poor adherence outcomes. CONCLUSION: The intervention facilitated CR adherence through reinforcement, behavioural regulation, the provision of knowledge and social influence. To reach a broader and more diverse population, future iterations of the intervention should target aberrant beliefs about consequences, memory and decision-making and emotion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov registry; NCT02382731 BMJ Publishing Group 2020-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7473621/ /pubmed/32883724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036750 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Desveaux, Laura
Saragosa, Marianne
Russell, Kirstie
McCleary, Nicola
Presseau, Justin
Witteman, Holly O
Schwalm, J-D
Ivers, Noah Michael
How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation
title How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation
title_full How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation
title_fullStr How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation
title_full_unstemmed How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation
title_short How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation
title_sort how and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-mi worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32883724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036750
work_keys_str_mv AT desveauxlaura howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT saragosamarianne howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT russellkirstie howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT mcclearynicola howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT presseaujustin howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT wittemanhollyo howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT schwalmjd howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT iversnoahmichael howandwhyamultifacetedinterventiontoimproveadherencepostmiworkedforsomeandcouldworkbetterforothersanoutcomedrivenqualitativeprocessevaluation