Anne Kristine Aarestrup1, Thea Suldrup Jørgensen2, Pernille Due3, Rikke Krølner4. 1. Centre for Intervention Research in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of Southern Denmark, National Institute of Public Health, Øster Farimagsgade 5A 2nd Floor, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Electronic address: aka@niph.dk. 2. Centre for Intervention Research in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of Southern Denmark, National Institute of Public Health, Øster Farimagsgade 5A 2nd Floor, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Electronic address: thsj@niph.dk. 3. Centre for Intervention Research in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of Southern Denmark, National Institute of Public Health, Øster Farimagsgade 5A 2nd Floor, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Electronic address: pdu@niph.dk. 4. Centre for Intervention Research in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of Southern Denmark, National Institute of Public Health, Øster Farimagsgade 5A 2nd Floor, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Electronic address: rkr@niph.dk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In multicomponent interventions it is important to examine the implementation of each component to enable valid assessments of the effectiveness of each component. Many studies do not systematically document, evaluate and report the level of implementation and there is a lack of systematic approaches to conduct process evaluation studies to guide researchers and evaluators. The aim of this study was to present a systematic approach to plan process evaluation of the implementation of randomised multicomponent interventions. METHODS: Building on existing process evaluation frameworks and concepts, we developed a six-step protocol: 1. Brainstorm of processes necessary for full implementation and potential barriers and facilitators to implementation; 2. Application of process evaluation concepts to ensure inclusion of important implementation processes; 3. Measurement of proximal outcomes; 4. Identification of relevant data sources; 5. Selection of methods and timing of data collection of process measures; 6. Development of instruments. The protocol was applied to the Boost study, a multicomponent school-based dietary intervention. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The protocol was readily applicable for planning process evaluation of environmental and educational intervention components in a school setting. The protocol ensures systematic assessment of the implementation processes that are crucial for interpretation of intervention effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11666034.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In multicomponent interventions it is important to examine the implementation of each component to enable valid assessments of the effectiveness of each component. Many studies do not systematically document, evaluate and report the level of implementation and there is a lack of systematic approaches to conduct process evaluation studies to guide researchers and evaluators. The aim of this study was to present a systematic approach to plan process evaluation of the implementation of randomised multicomponent interventions. METHODS: Building on existing process evaluation frameworks and concepts, we developed a six-step protocol: 1. Brainstorm of processes necessary for full implementation and potential barriers and facilitators to implementation; 2. Application of process evaluation concepts to ensure inclusion of important implementation processes; 3. Measurement of proximal outcomes; 4. Identification of relevant data sources; 5. Selection of methods and timing of data collection of process measures; 6. Development of instruments. The protocol was applied to the Boost study, a multicomponent school-based dietary intervention. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The protocol was readily applicable for planning process evaluation of environmental and educational intervention components in a school setting. The protocol ensures systematic assessment of the implementation processes that are crucial for interpretation of intervention effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11666034.
Authors: Lisa Hall; Nicole M White; Michelle Allen; Alison Farrington; Brett G Mitchell; Katie Page; Kate Halton; Thomas V Riley; Christian A Gericke; Nicholas Graves; Anne Gardner Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 4.887
Authors: Donald C Cole; Carol Levin; Cornelia Loechl; Graham Thiele; Frederick Grant; Aimee Webb Girard; Kirimi Sindi; Jan Low Journal: Eval Program Plann Date: 2016-03-14
Authors: Camilla Thørring Bonnesen; Marie P Jensen; Katrine R Madsen; Mette Toftager; Johanne A Rosing; Rikke F Krølner Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2020-06-01
Authors: Veronica Sofie Clara Pisinger; Sofie Have Hoffmann; Lotte Pålsson; Peter Dalum; Morten Klöcker Grønbæk; Janne Schurmann Tolstrup; Lau Caspar Thygesen; Rikke Fredenslund Krølner Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-09-15