| Literature DB >> 29970168 |
Lisa Dillon1,2, Lindy Clemson3, Kristy Coxon4, Lisa Keay1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A nested process evaluation, within a randomised controlled trial, will explore relationships between program outcomes and quality of intervention implementation of the Lifestyle-Integrated Functional Exercise Program in older people with vision impairment. The Lifestyle-Integrated Functional Exercise Program is a home-based strength and balance program that has been shown to reduce falls in high risk populations. A pilot study showed positive trends in improvements in physical function in older people with vision impairment after participation in the program. The program will be delivered by Orientation and Mobility Specialists, who are experienced in working with people with vision impairment.Entities:
Keywords: Falls prevention; Implementation; Process evaluation; Strength and balance; Vision impairment
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29970168 PMCID: PMC6029014 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3304-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Process evaluation procedures mapped to measures, outcomes and Behaviour Change Techniques
| Component | Question | Method/Measure | Data Type | Outcomes | aBehaviour Change Techniques (Intervention Function) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Program Adherence (Fidelity) | How well did the O&M Specialists deliver the v-LiFE program to participants? | • A trained observer will observe 1–2 participant sessions with each instructor using a checklist, while making comments (20% of all v-LiFE program participants). | Quantitative | Higher scores indicate well delivered v-LiFE programs | Feedback on behaviour (Education/Persuasion/Coercion); Credible source (Persuasion); Instruction on how to perform the behaviour (Training); Problem solving (Enablement) |
| Qualitative | Analysis of observer’s comments using the BCW as a framework | |||||
|
| Complete Delivery (Dose delivered) | To what extent were all of the intended components of the v-LiFE program delivered to participants? | • O&M Specialists to record each time they complete a session, booster session, additional sessions and/or phone calls. | Quantitative | Higher scores indicate participants received a higher program dose | Self-monitoring of behaviour (Education/Incentivisation); Monitoring of behaviour by others without evidence of feedback (Coercion); Prompt/cues (Education) |
|
| Participant Receipt (Dose received) | To what extent were participants engaged/satisfied with the v-LiFE program? | • Semi-structured interview (30 participants). | Qualitative | Analysis of transcripts using the BCW as a framework | Information about health consequences, self-monitoring of behaviour (Education); Monitoring of behaviour by others without evidence of feedback (Coercion) |
| • Short answer survey (all participants). | Quantitative | Higher scores on the AFRIS indicate higher engagement to v-LiFE | ||||
|
| Participant Enactment | To what extent were the participants completing the prescribed activities? | • The Self-Report Habit Index (post-program) | Quantitative | Higher scores on the Index indicate stronger habit formation | Self-monitoring of behaviour (Education/Incentivisation/Coercion); Feedback on behaviour (Education/Incentivisation/Coercion); Monitoring of outcome of behaviour by others without evidence of feedback (Incentivisation/Coercion |
a Michie et al. [13], BCW: Behaviour Change Wheel. AFRIS: Attitudes to Falls-Related Interventions Scale
Fig. 1Logic model for PlaTFORM and v-LiFE implementation evaluation. O&M, Orientation and Mobility; VI, Vision Impairment; SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery; LLFDI, Late Life Function Disability Index; RR Statistic, Risk Ratio Statistic; AFRIS, Attitudes to Falls Related Intervention Scale