| Literature DB >> 25241188 |
Femke Hoekstra, Roelina A Alingh, Cees P van der Schans, Florentina J Hettinga, Marjo Duijf, Rienk Dekker, Lucas H V van der Woude.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest to study the transfer of evidence-based information into daily practice. The evidence-based programme Rehabilitation, Sports and Exercise (RSE) that aims to stimulate an active lifestyle during and after a rehabilitation period in people with a disability and/or chronic disease is prepared for nationwide dissemination. So far, however, little is known about the implementation of a new programme to stimulate physical activity in people with a disability in a rehabilitation setting. Therefore, a process evaluation of the implementation of the RSE programme within 18 Dutch rehabilitation centres and hospitals is performed in order to gain more insight into the implementation process itself and factors that facilitate or hamper the implementation process. This paper describes the study design of this process evaluation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25241188 PMCID: PMC4177248 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-014-0127-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Implement Sci ISSN: 1748-5908 Impact factor: 7.327
Process outcomes of the evaluation of the implementation process of the RSE programme
| Process outcomes | Definitions of process outcomes* | Description | Data collection |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Adoption | |||
|
| `Procedures used to approach centres and hospitals to participate in the RSE programme’. | Organization level: | I |
| - Strategy of inviting organizations to participate in the RSE programme | |||
| - Reasons of organizations for (not) participating in the programme | |||
| 2) Implementation | |||
|
|
| Organization level: | Q, RS, I, FG |
| - Conformity to the implementation strategy (main components) | |||
| - Conformity to the RSE programme (main components) | |||
|
| `The amount of the RSE programme that is delivered or performed by the professionals’. | Organization level: | Q, RS |
| - Amount of activities performed as part of the implementation strategy | |||
| - Amount of introductory sessions delivered | |||
| - Amount of sport and exercise activities as standard components of the rehabilitation treatment | |||
| - Amount of face-to-face sessions delivered by the counsellor | |||
| - Amount of counselling sessions delivered by the counsellor | |||
| - Amount of collaborations with exercise and sport facilitators (network) | |||
|
| `The amount of the RSE programme that is received by the patients’. | Patient level: | Q, RS |
| - Number/percentage of patients who get acquainted with sport and exercise activities during rehabilitation treatment | |||
| - Number/percentage of patients who are referred to the SCC | |||
| - Number/percentage of patients who received a face-to-face consultation | |||
| - Number/percentage of patients who received counselling | |||
| - Number/percentage of patients who are referred to a sport and exercise activity in the region | |||
|
| `The extent to which professionals and persons with a physical disability and/or chronic disease are reached by the implementation of the RSE programme’. | Organization level: | Q, RS, FG |
| - Number of exercise and sport facilities that collaborate with participating organizations (network) | |||
| - Number/percentage of professionals participating in activities that are part of the implementation strategy | |||
| - Number/percentage of professionals participating in the RSE programme | |||
| Patient level: | |||
| - Number/percentage of patients participating in the RSE programme | |||
|
| `Opinion about the RSE programme and the implementation strategy’. | Organization level: | Q, RS, FG |
| - Opinion about the implementation strategy by professionals | |||
| - Opinion about the content of the RSE programme by professionals | |||
| - Satisfaction about the implementation RSE programme within the organization | |||
| Patient level: | |||
| - Satisfaction/opinion about the RSE programme by patients | |||
| - Satisfaction about the sport and exercise facilities in the region by patients | |||
| 3) Continuation | |||
|
| `The extent to which the RSE programme is integrated into the routines and into the organization’. | Organization level: | Q, I, FG |
| - The integration of the RSE programme into the standard rehabilitation treatment | |||
| - The integration of the RSE programme into the policy of the organization | |||
| 4) Implementation determinants | |||
|
| `Aspects of the environment that influence the implementation of the RSE programme or the RSE programme outcomes’. | Organization and patient level: | Q, RS, I, FG |
| - Characteristics of the social-political context | |||
| - Characteristics of the rehabilitation centre/hospital | |||
| - Characteristics of the professionals of the centre/hospitals | |||
| - Characteristics of the RSE programme | |||
| - Characteristics of the patients |
*Definitions are based on the literature of Steckler and Linnan [13] and Saunders et al.[33]; Q = questionnaires, RS = registration system, I = interviews, FG = focus groups.
Figure 1Theoretical framework adapted from Wierenga [[14]].
Figure 2Overview of the different methods used to collect data for the process evaluation. Data are collected at different levels and at different time points.