Cargando…
Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Best‐practice low back pain (LBP) primary care programmes have been developed based on evidence‐based clinical guidelines and implemented in Sweden and Denmark. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) was utilized in the design of the implementation strategy. Based on the TDF do...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8020443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33842696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.266 |
_version_ | 1783674585202294784 |
---|---|
author | Ris, Inge Schröder, Karin Kongsted, Alice Abbott, Allan Nilsen, Per Hartvigsen, Jan Öberg, Birgitta |
author_facet | Ris, Inge Schröder, Karin Kongsted, Alice Abbott, Allan Nilsen, Per Hartvigsen, Jan Öberg, Birgitta |
author_sort | Ris, Inge |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Best‐practice low back pain (LBP) primary care programmes have been developed based on evidence‐based clinical guidelines and implemented in Sweden and Denmark. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) was utilized in the design of the implementation strategy. Based on the TDF domains, the Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) has been developed to evaluate implementation determinants, but its feasibility and validity need to be tested and adapted to study specific contexts. This study aimed to tailor the DIBQ for evaluation of implementation for LBP primary care programmes. The objectives were to (a) translate the DIBQ into Swedish and Danish, (b) adapt the DIBQ into DIBQ‐tailored (DIBQ‐t) to study content validity, (c) test the DIBQ‐t for feasibility, and (d) perform validity testing of DIBQ‐t. METHODS: We used a mixed‐methods design. First, forward translation of the DIBQ, then adaptation into DIBQ‐t using qualitative face validity and quantitative content validity was done. Finally, to determine feasibility and construct validity using confirmatory factor analyses, we used data from DIBQ‐t collected after the programmes' 2‐day course. RESULTS: The final DIBQ‐t included 28 items describing 10 of the original 18 DIBQ domains and was considered feasible. A total of 598 clinicians out of 609 responded to the DIBQ‐t, with only 2‰ of the items missing. The confirmatory factor analyses showed a good fit after removing two items with the lowest domain loading. The DIBQ‐t maintained linkage to all domains within the Behavioral Change Wheel. The clinicians' expectations, according to the DIBQ‐t, indicate facilitating determinants outweighing barriers at the initiation of implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: The study resulted in a feasible and valid version of a questionnaire for evaluating clinicians' expectations regarding implementation determinants of best‐practice LBP primary care programmes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8020443 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80204432021-04-08 Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods Ris, Inge Schröder, Karin Kongsted, Alice Abbott, Allan Nilsen, Per Hartvigsen, Jan Öberg, Birgitta Health Sci Rep Research Articles BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Best‐practice low back pain (LBP) primary care programmes have been developed based on evidence‐based clinical guidelines and implemented in Sweden and Denmark. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) was utilized in the design of the implementation strategy. Based on the TDF domains, the Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) has been developed to evaluate implementation determinants, but its feasibility and validity need to be tested and adapted to study specific contexts. This study aimed to tailor the DIBQ for evaluation of implementation for LBP primary care programmes. The objectives were to (a) translate the DIBQ into Swedish and Danish, (b) adapt the DIBQ into DIBQ‐tailored (DIBQ‐t) to study content validity, (c) test the DIBQ‐t for feasibility, and (d) perform validity testing of DIBQ‐t. METHODS: We used a mixed‐methods design. First, forward translation of the DIBQ, then adaptation into DIBQ‐t using qualitative face validity and quantitative content validity was done. Finally, to determine feasibility and construct validity using confirmatory factor analyses, we used data from DIBQ‐t collected after the programmes' 2‐day course. RESULTS: The final DIBQ‐t included 28 items describing 10 of the original 18 DIBQ domains and was considered feasible. A total of 598 clinicians out of 609 responded to the DIBQ‐t, with only 2‰ of the items missing. The confirmatory factor analyses showed a good fit after removing two items with the lowest domain loading. The DIBQ‐t maintained linkage to all domains within the Behavioral Change Wheel. The clinicians' expectations, according to the DIBQ‐t, indicate facilitating determinants outweighing barriers at the initiation of implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: The study resulted in a feasible and valid version of a questionnaire for evaluating clinicians' expectations regarding implementation determinants of best‐practice LBP primary care programmes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8020443/ /pubmed/33842696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.266 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Ris, Inge Schröder, Karin Kongsted, Alice Abbott, Allan Nilsen, Per Hartvigsen, Jan Öberg, Birgitta Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods |
title | Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods |
title_full | Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods |
title_fullStr | Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods |
title_short | Adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods |
title_sort | adapting the determinants of implementation behavior questionnaire to evaluate implementation of a structured low back pain programme using mixed‐methods |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8020443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33842696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.266 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT risinge adaptingthedeterminantsofimplementationbehaviorquestionnairetoevaluateimplementationofastructuredlowbackpainprogrammeusingmixedmethods AT schroderkarin adaptingthedeterminantsofimplementationbehaviorquestionnairetoevaluateimplementationofastructuredlowbackpainprogrammeusingmixedmethods AT kongstedalice adaptingthedeterminantsofimplementationbehaviorquestionnairetoevaluateimplementationofastructuredlowbackpainprogrammeusingmixedmethods AT abbottallan adaptingthedeterminantsofimplementationbehaviorquestionnairetoevaluateimplementationofastructuredlowbackpainprogrammeusingmixedmethods AT nilsenper adaptingthedeterminantsofimplementationbehaviorquestionnairetoevaluateimplementationofastructuredlowbackpainprogrammeusingmixedmethods AT hartvigsenjan adaptingthedeterminantsofimplementationbehaviorquestionnairetoevaluateimplementationofastructuredlowbackpainprogrammeusingmixedmethods AT obergbirgitta adaptingthedeterminantsofimplementationbehaviorquestionnairetoevaluateimplementationofastructuredlowbackpainprogrammeusingmixedmethods |