Literature DB >> 33436462

Challenges implementing a carer support intervention within a national stroke organisation: findings from the process evaluation of the OSCARSS trial.

Sarah Darley1, Sarah Knowles2, Kate Woodward-Nutt3, Claire Mitchell4, Gunn Grande5, Gail Ewing6, Sarah Rhodes7, Audrey Bowen4, Emma Patchwood4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the implementation of an intervention to support informal caregivers and to help understand findings from the Organising Support for Carers of Stroke Survivors (OSCARSS) cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT).
DESIGN: Longitudinal process evaluation using mixed methods. Normalisation process theory informed data collection and provided a sensitising framework for analysis.
SETTING: Specialist stroke support services delivered primarily in the homes of informal carers of stroke survivors. PARTICIPANTS: OSCARSS cRCT participants including carers, staff, managers and senior leaders. INTERVENTION: The Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool for Stroke (CSNAT-Stroke) intervention is a staff-facilitated, carer-led approach to help identify, prioritise and address support needs.
RESULTS: We conducted qualitative interviews with: OSCARSS cRCT carer participants (11 intervention, 10 control), staff (12 intervention, 8 control) and managers and senior leaders (11); and obtained 140 responses to an online staff survey over three separate time points. Both individual (carer/staff) and organisational factors impacted implementation of the CSNAT-Stroke intervention and how it was received by carers. We identified four themes: staff understanding, carer participation, implementation, and learning and support. Staff valued the idea of a structured approach to supporting carers, but key elements of the intervention were not routinely delivered. Carers did not necessarily identify as 'carers', which made it difficult for staff to engage them in the intervention. Despite organisational enthusiasm for OSCARSS, staff in the intervention arm perceived support and training for implementation of CSNAT-Stroke as delivered primarily by the research team, with few opportunities for shared learning across the organisation.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified challenges across carer, staff and organisation levels that help explain the OSCARSS cRCT outcome. Ensuring training is translated into practice and ongoing organisational support would be required for full implementation of this type of intervention, with emphasis on the carer-led aspects, including supporting carer self-identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58414120. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  public health; qualitative research; stroke

Year:  2021        PMID: 33436462      PMCID: PMC7805355          DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Open        ISSN: 2044-6055            Impact factor:   2.692


  28 in total

Review 1.  Positive experiences of caregiving in stroke: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ann Mackenzie; Nan Greenwood
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 3.033

2.  Agency and implementation: understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice.

Authors:  Carl May
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  The Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT) for use in palliative and end-of-life care at home: a validation study.

Authors:  Gail Ewing; Caroline Brundle; Sheila Payne; Gunn Grande
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.612

4.  Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

Authors:  Tammy C Hoffmann; Paul P Glasziou; Isabelle Boutron; Ruairidh Milne; Rafael Perera; David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Virginia Barbour; Helen Macdonald; Marie Johnston; Sarah E Lamb; Mary Dixon-Woods; Peter McCulloch; Jeremy C Wyatt; An-Wen Chan; Susan Michie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-03-07

5.  Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit.

Authors:  Carl R May; Tracy Finch; Luciana Ballini; Anne MacFarlane; Frances Mair; Elizabeth Murray; Shaun Treweek; Tim Rapley
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC).

Authors:  Amy Lloyd; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Adrian Edwards; Andrew Rix; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  Implementation of a self-management support approach (WISE) across a health system: a process evaluation explaining what did and did not work for organisations, clinicians and patients.

Authors:  Anne Kennedy; Anne Rogers; Carolyn Chew-Graham; Thomas Blakeman; Robert Bowen; Caroline Gardner; Victoria Lee; Rebecca Morris; Joanne Protheroe
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  Hidden caring, hidden carers? Exploring the experience of carers for people with long-term conditions.

Authors:  Sarah Knowles; Ryan Combs; Sue Kirk; May Griffiths; Neesha Patel; Caroline Sanders
Journal:  Health Soc Care Community       Date:  2015-02-23

9.  Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Carl R May; Amanda Cummings; Melissa Girling; Mike Bracher; Frances S Mair; Christine M May; Elizabeth Murray; Michelle Myall; Tim Rapley; Tracy Finch
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting.

Authors:  Aileen Grant; Shaun Treweek; Tobias Dreischulte; Robbie Foy; Bruce Guthrie
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-01-12       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.