Cargando…

What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.

Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Racine, Emmy, O Mahony, Lauren, Riordan, Fiona, Flynn, Gráinne, Kearney, Patricia M., McHugh, Sheena M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9989546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36895913
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13544.2
_version_ 1784901789726801920
author Racine, Emmy
O Mahony, Lauren
Riordan, Fiona
Flynn, Gráinne
Kearney, Patricia M.
McHugh, Sheena M.
author_facet Racine, Emmy
O Mahony, Lauren
Riordan, Fiona
Flynn, Gráinne
Kearney, Patricia M.
McHugh, Sheena M.
author_sort Racine, Emmy
collection PubMed
description Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes’ (PWD) and healthcare professionals’ (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9989546
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99895462023-03-08 What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study. Racine, Emmy O Mahony, Lauren Riordan, Fiona Flynn, Gráinne Kearney, Patricia M. McHugh, Sheena M. HRB Open Res Research Article Background: UK Medical Research Council guidelines recommend end-user involvement in intervention development. There is limited evidence on the contributions of different end-users to this process. The aim of this Study Within A Trial (SWAT) was to identify and compare contributions from two groups of end-users - people with diabetes’ (PWD) and healthcare professionals’ (HCPs), during consensus meetings to inform an intervention to improve retinopathy screening uptake. Methods: A mixed method, explanatory sequential design comprising a survey and three semi-structured consensus meetings was used. PWD were randomly assigned to a PWD only or combined meeting. HCPs attended a HCP only or combined meeting, based on availability. In the survey, participants rated intervention proposals on acceptability and feasibility. Survey results informed the meeting topic guide. Transcripts were analysed deductively to compare feedback on intervention proposals, suggestions for new content, and contributions to the final intervention. Results: Overall, 13 PWD and 17 HCPs completed the survey, and 16 PWD and 15 HCPs attended meetings. For 31 of the 39 intervention proposals in the survey, there were differences (≥10%) between the proportion of HCPs and PWD who rated proposals as acceptable and/or feasible. End-user groups shared and unique concerns about proposals; both were concerned about informing but not scaring people when communicating risk, while concerns about resources were mostly unique to HCPs and concerns about privacy were mostly unique to PWD.  Fewer suggestions for new intervention content from the combined meeting were integrated into the final intervention as they were not feasible for implementation in general practice. Participants contributed four new behaviour change techniques not present in the original proposals: goal setting (outcome), restructuring the physical environment, material incentive (behaviour) and punishment. Conclusions: Preferences for intervention content may differ across end-user groups, with feedback varying depending on whether end-users are involved simultaneously or separately. F1000 Research Limited 2023-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9989546/ /pubmed/36895913 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13544.2 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Racine E et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Racine, Emmy
O Mahony, Lauren
Riordan, Fiona
Flynn, Gráinne
Kearney, Patricia M.
McHugh, Sheena M.
What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.
title What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.
title_full What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.
title_fullStr What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.
title_full_unstemmed What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.
title_short What and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? A mixed methods study.
title_sort what and how do different stakeholders contribute to intervention development? a mixed methods study.
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9989546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36895913
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13544.2
work_keys_str_mv AT racineemmy whatandhowdodifferentstakeholderscontributetointerventiondevelopmentamixedmethodsstudy
AT omahonylauren whatandhowdodifferentstakeholderscontributetointerventiondevelopmentamixedmethodsstudy
AT riordanfiona whatandhowdodifferentstakeholderscontributetointerventiondevelopmentamixedmethodsstudy
AT flynngrainne whatandhowdodifferentstakeholderscontributetointerventiondevelopmentamixedmethodsstudy
AT kearneypatriciam whatandhowdodifferentstakeholderscontributetointerventiondevelopmentamixedmethodsstudy
AT mchughsheenam whatandhowdodifferentstakeholderscontributetointerventiondevelopmentamixedmethodsstudy