Cargando…

The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation

BACKGROUND: Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bugge, Carol, Kearney, Rohna, Dembinsky, Melanie, Khunda, Aethele, Graham, Margaret, Agur, Wael, Breeman, Suzanne, Dwyer, Lucy, Elders, Andrew, Forrest, Mark, Goodman, Kirsteen, Guerrero, Karen, Hemming, Christine, Mason, Helen, McClurg, Doreen, Melone, Lynn, Norrie, John, Thakar, Ranee, Hagen, Suzanne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7542744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33032651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04729-w
_version_ 1783591605542846464
author Bugge, Carol
Kearney, Rohna
Dembinsky, Melanie
Khunda, Aethele
Graham, Margaret
Agur, Wael
Breeman, Suzanne
Dwyer, Lucy
Elders, Andrew
Forrest, Mark
Goodman, Kirsteen
Guerrero, Karen
Hemming, Christine
Mason, Helen
McClurg, Doreen
Melone, Lynn
Norrie, John
Thakar, Ranee
Hagen, Suzanne
author_facet Bugge, Carol
Kearney, Rohna
Dembinsky, Melanie
Khunda, Aethele
Graham, Margaret
Agur, Wael
Breeman, Suzanne
Dwyer, Lucy
Elders, Andrew
Forrest, Mark
Goodman, Kirsteen
Guerrero, Karen
Hemming, Christine
Mason, Helen
McClurg, Doreen
Melone, Lynn
Norrie, John
Thakar, Ranee
Hagen, Suzanne
author_sort Bugge, Carol
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practical setting by examining the context in which interventions are implemented. The TOPSY study consists of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of pessary self-management with clinic-based care in improving women’s condition-specific quality of life, and a nested process evaluation. The process evaluation aims to examine and maximise recruitment to the trial, describe intervention fidelity and explore participants’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences. METHODS: The trial will recruit 330 women from approximately 17 UK centres. The process evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with randomised women (18 per randomised group/n = 36), women who declined trial participation but agreed to interview (non-randomised women) (n = 20) and healthcare professionals recruiting to the trial (n ~ 17) and delivering self-management and clinic-based care (n ~ 17). The six internal pilot centres will be asked to record two to three recruitment discussions each (total n = 12–18). All participating centres will be asked to record one or two self-management teaching appointments (n = 30) and self-management 2-week follow-up telephone calls (n = 30). Process data (quantitative and qualitative) will be gathered in participant completed trial questionnaires. Interviews will be analysed thematically and recordings using an analytic grid to identify fidelity to the intervention. Quantitative analysis will be predefined within the process evaluation analysis plan. DISCUSSION: The wide variety of pessary care delivered across the UK for women with pelvic organ prolapse presents specific localised contexts in which the TOPSY interventions will be implemented. Understanding this contextual variance is central to understanding how and in what circumstances pessary self-management can be implemented (should it be effective). The inclusion of non-randomised women provides an innovative way of collecting indispensable information about eligible women who decline trial participation, allowing broader contextualisation and considerations of generalisability of trial findings. Methodological insights from examination of recruitment processes and mechanisms have the potential to inform recruitment mechanisms and future recruitment strategies and study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN62510577. Registered on 6 October 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7542744
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75427442020-10-08 The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation Bugge, Carol Kearney, Rohna Dembinsky, Melanie Khunda, Aethele Graham, Margaret Agur, Wael Breeman, Suzanne Dwyer, Lucy Elders, Andrew Forrest, Mark Goodman, Kirsteen Guerrero, Karen Hemming, Christine Mason, Helen McClurg, Doreen Melone, Lynn Norrie, John Thakar, Ranee Hagen, Suzanne Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practical setting by examining the context in which interventions are implemented. The TOPSY study consists of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of pessary self-management with clinic-based care in improving women’s condition-specific quality of life, and a nested process evaluation. The process evaluation aims to examine and maximise recruitment to the trial, describe intervention fidelity and explore participants’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences. METHODS: The trial will recruit 330 women from approximately 17 UK centres. The process evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with randomised women (18 per randomised group/n = 36), women who declined trial participation but agreed to interview (non-randomised women) (n = 20) and healthcare professionals recruiting to the trial (n ~ 17) and delivering self-management and clinic-based care (n ~ 17). The six internal pilot centres will be asked to record two to three recruitment discussions each (total n = 12–18). All participating centres will be asked to record one or two self-management teaching appointments (n = 30) and self-management 2-week follow-up telephone calls (n = 30). Process data (quantitative and qualitative) will be gathered in participant completed trial questionnaires. Interviews will be analysed thematically and recordings using an analytic grid to identify fidelity to the intervention. Quantitative analysis will be predefined within the process evaluation analysis plan. DISCUSSION: The wide variety of pessary care delivered across the UK for women with pelvic organ prolapse presents specific localised contexts in which the TOPSY interventions will be implemented. Understanding this contextual variance is central to understanding how and in what circumstances pessary self-management can be implemented (should it be effective). The inclusion of non-randomised women provides an innovative way of collecting indispensable information about eligible women who decline trial participation, allowing broader contextualisation and considerations of generalisability of trial findings. Methodological insights from examination of recruitment processes and mechanisms have the potential to inform recruitment mechanisms and future recruitment strategies and study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN62510577. Registered on 6 October 2017. BioMed Central 2020-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7542744/ /pubmed/33032651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04729-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Bugge, Carol
Kearney, Rohna
Dembinsky, Melanie
Khunda, Aethele
Graham, Margaret
Agur, Wael
Breeman, Suzanne
Dwyer, Lucy
Elders, Andrew
Forrest, Mark
Goodman, Kirsteen
Guerrero, Karen
Hemming, Christine
Mason, Helen
McClurg, Doreen
Melone, Lynn
Norrie, John
Thakar, Ranee
Hagen, Suzanne
The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
title The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
title_full The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
title_fullStr The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
title_full_unstemmed The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
title_short The TOPSY pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
title_sort topsy pessary self-management intervention for pelvic organ prolapse: a study protocol for the process evaluation
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7542744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33032651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04729-w
work_keys_str_mv AT buggecarol thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT kearneyrohna thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT dembinskymelanie thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT khundaaethele thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT grahammargaret thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT agurwael thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT breemansuzanne thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT dwyerlucy thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT eldersandrew thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT forrestmark thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT goodmankirsteen thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT guerrerokaren thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT hemmingchristine thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT masonhelen thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT mcclurgdoreen thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT melonelynn thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT norriejohn thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT thakarranee thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT hagensuzanne thetopsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT buggecarol topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT kearneyrohna topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT dembinskymelanie topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT khundaaethele topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT grahammargaret topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT agurwael topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT breemansuzanne topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT dwyerlucy topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT eldersandrew topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT forrestmark topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT goodmankirsteen topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT guerrerokaren topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT hemmingchristine topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT masonhelen topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT mcclurgdoreen topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT melonelynn topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT norriejohn topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT thakarranee topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation
AT hagensuzanne topsypessaryselfmanagementinterventionforpelvicorganprolapseastudyprotocolfortheprocessevaluation