| Literature DB >> 26449368 |
Rianne M J J van der Kleij1,2, Mathilde R Crone3,4, Theo G W M Paulussen5,6, Vivan M van de Gaar7, Ria Reis8,9,10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implementation of programs complex in design, such as the intersectoral community approach Youth At a Healthy Weight (JOGG), often deviates from their application as intended. There is limited knowledge of their implementation processes, making it difficult to formulate sound implementation strategies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26449368 PMCID: PMC4597380 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2306-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Overview of the framework by Saunders et al. [27]
Fig. 2Overview of the research process
Fig. 3QCA derived causal configuration analysis
Overview of key and additional campaign activities
| Participating organization | Key activities | Additional activities | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Educational | Primary schools | - Installment of fruit days & water moments | - Distributing promotional materials (e.g. fruit baskets, water cans & crates, coupons for discounts at local enterprises, stickers, posters, banners, window foils, information cards for parents) |
| Health care | Centre for Youth & Family (CYF) | - Motivating target population to increase fruit & water consumption | - Distributing promotional materials |
| Social Welfare | Social Welfare organization Library | - Integration of campaign themes within regular activities | - Development of new activities related to campaign themes (e.g. decorating water carafes) |
| Sports | Sports organizations A& B | - Integration of campaign themes within regular activities | - Supplying fruit during sport events in the community |
| Private | Supermarket, household appliance stores | - Providing fruit free of charge to children | - Promoting the campaign |
Sample achieved
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Int | Obs | Int | Obs | Int | Obs | Int | Obs | Int | Obs | |
| Educational | ||||||||||
| Primary school A | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | PD | |
| Primary school B | 7 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Primary school C | 9 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | PD | |
| Primary school D | PD | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Health care | ||||||||||
| Centre for Youth & Family | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Youth health services | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Social welfare and sport | ||||||||||
| General welfare organization | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Library | NP | - | 1 | Closed due to budget curtailments | ||||||
| Sports organization A | NP | NP | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NP | |||
| Sports organization B | NP | NP | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NP | |||
| Private | ||||||||||
| Supermarket A | NP | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Supermarket B | NP | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Household appliance storeA | NP | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NP | NP | |||
| Household appliance store B | NP | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NP | NP | |||
| Household appliance store C | NP | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NP | NP | |||
Int number of interviews, Obs number of observations, NP not prescribed campaign activities, PD declined (further) participation in study
Completeness of key- and additional activities
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Key | % Add | % Key | % Add | % Key | % Add | % Key | % Add | % Key | % Add | |
| Educational | ||||||||||
| Primary school A | 75 | 29 | 54 | 27 | 17 | 4 | 75 | 32 | ||
| Primary school B | 33 | 24 | 83 | 39 | 100 | 33 | 100 | 64 | 50 | 100 |
| Primary school C | 63 | 39 | 88 | 39 | 50 | 35 | 42 | 37 | ||
| Primary school D | 50 | 33 | 75 | 36 | 100 | 100 | ||||
| Health care | ||||||||||
| Centre for Youth & Family | 100 | 25 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 100 | 80 | 100 | ||
| Youth health services | 83 | 43 | 100 | 71 | 67 | 67 | 75 | 75 | 100 | 100 |
| Social welfare and sport | ||||||||||
| General welfare organization | 67 | 50 | 0 | 14 | 67 | 17 | 25 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Library | 50 | 50 | ||||||||
| Sports organization A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Sports organization B | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Private | ||||||||||
| Supermarket A | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | ||||
| Supermarket B | 0 | 0 | 100 | 80 | 33 | 0 | ||||
| Household appliance storeA | 100 | 33 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Household appliance storeB | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Household appliance store C | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Key Key activities, Add additional activities
Key barriers & facilitators per sector per implementation phase
| Educational | Health care | Private | Welfare & sports | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Int | Mid | Cont | Inta | Mid | Con | Int | Mid | Cont | Int | Mid | Cont | |
| Key facilitators | ||||||||||||
| Campaign compatible with existing work procedures | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||
| Possibility to adapt campaign to local needs | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||
| ↑ ownership for campaign use | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||
| ↑ self-efficacy for campaign use | ● | ● | ||||||||||
| Uptake of campaign use in daily working routine | ● | |||||||||||
|
| ● | |||||||||||
| ↑ support from campaign manager | ● | ● | ||||||||||
| Regular evaluation of campaign implementation | ● | |||||||||||
| Campaign use cause advantages | ● | |||||||||||
|
| ● | |||||||||||
| Key barriers | ||||||||||||
| ↓ procedural clarity | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||
| Campaign use causes disadvantages | ● | |||||||||||
| ↓ priority assigned to campaign use | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||
| ↓ durability of campaign materials | ● | |||||||||||
|
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||
| Campaign is considered incomplete | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||
|
| ● | ● | ||||||||||
|
| ● | |||||||||||
| ↓ participation of target population in campaign | ● | ● | ||||||||||
| High turn-over of staff | ● | |||||||||||
|
| ● | |||||||||||
Int Initial implementation, Mid mid-way implementation; Con continued implementation; atoo little data available to draw conclusions; Determinants outside of the scope of the Fleuren framework are italicized
Causal configurations of determinants
| Sector | Phase | Outcome (completeness) | Causal configurationsa | # cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Educational | Initial implementation | Medium |
| 7 out of 10 cases |
| Initial implementation | High |
| 2 out of 2 cases | |
| Mid-way implementation | Medium / High | ( | 9 out of 11 cases | |
| Continued implementation | Medium | ( | 4 out of 4 cases | |
| Continued implementation | High |
| 5 out of 6 cases | |
| Health Care | Continued implementation | Medium |
| 2 out of 2 cases |
| Continued implementation | High |
| 2 out of 2 cases | |
| Private | Continued implementation | Low |
| 2 out of 2 cases |
| Continued implementation | High |
| 2 out of 2 cases | |
| Welfare | Initial implementation | Medium / High | ( | 3 out of 3 cases |
| Continued implementation | Medium / High |
| 2 out of 2 cases |
aItalic = barrier, Bold = facilitator
|
|
| • Research plans need to be adapted iteratively to local developments; |
| • The translation of research findings into practice could possibly be optimized by the use of participatory action research (PAR); |
| • A complete, understandable IACO that is compatible with and considered relevant by practice can facilitate IACO implementation |
| • As some determinants appeared in configuration per sector and phase, implementation might benefit from consideration of these determinants in unity, rather than considering single determinants; |
| • Implementation plans and strategies should be tailored to sector- and implementation phase specific (combinations of) determinants, and should be based on a mutual adaptation strategy (“stitches in time”). |