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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |