| Literature DB >> 36101681 |
Jenny Gillespie1, Adrienne R Hughes1, Ann-Marie Gibson1, Jess Haines2, Elsie M Taveras3, Laura Stewart4, John J Reilly1.
Abstract
Objective: Healthy Habits, Happy Homes (4H) is a home-based, pre-school childhood obesity prevention intervention which demonstrated efficacy in North America which we translated to Scotland (4HS) by considering contextual factors and adapting study design. RE-AIM Framework was used to assess 1) extent to which development of 4HS intervention (including recruitment) was participatory and inclusive; 2) feasibility of translating a complex public health intervention from one setting to another; 3) extent to which translation was pragmatic and 4) fidelity of intervention to the principles of Motivational Interviewing (MI). Study design: Feasibility testing, process evaluation and measurements of intervention fidelity were undertaken to evaluate the translation of 4H to an economically deprived area of Scotland (4HS).Entities:
Keywords: Childhood obesity prevention; Process evaluation; RE-AIM; Translation
Year: 2020 PMID: 36101681 PMCID: PMC9461167 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhip.2020.100026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Public Health Pract (Oxf) ISSN: 2666-5352
Fig. 1Participatory methods of 4HS
Fig. 2Inclusive recruitment Methods.
Fig. 34HS intervention methods.
Evaluation of Healthy Habits Happy Homes Scotland (4HS) Translational Processes using RE-AIM.
| Component of study | RE-AIM Dimensions & Features of 4HS Study | Process & Feasibility Results Demonstrating Achievement or Enablement of: Aim 1 (participatory and inclusive approach) and Aim 2 (feasibility of translated intervention) |
|---|---|---|
| Participatory Approach (aim 1) | ||
researcher attended | ||
iterative process of dialogue and attendance at further meetings (Feb–May 2017) | n = | |
Meetings and workshops with a group (HIPA) of local parent/carers (May–August 2017) | n = 5 co-production workshops each with n = 8 local parents and n = 2 workers | |
Study name, Acceptable recruitment strategy, study website co-designed. | ‘Dundee Family Health Study’ ‘inclusive recruitment’ | |
participatory approach impact | building relationships, connecting with and establishing trust with local community. Key attributes to enable this: non-judgemental, empathetic, ability to put child and family needs at the centre, ability to ‘come alongside’ the individual, enhanced listening skills. | |
Levels of deprivation | a) over 35% of city population live within the most deprived areas of Scotland. | |
a) Dundee city and | b) 39% of households within NE area live in the 15% most income deprived areas in Scotland 2 of the 5 neighbourhoods at 65% and 96%. All meetings took place at local health hub within the North East community [ | |
b) local NE area | c) > 22% of children at primary 1 (age 4–5 years) were overweight or obese [ | |
c) Levels of childhood obesity | ||
Qualitative (co-production) - on the whole, the group felt that the original intervention materials were appropriate, based on discussions during 5 workshops with only small alterations made, to the words or language used (simple non jargon, non ‘american’ e.g., remove soda), preferences for locally relevant photographs and and use of colours not associated with either city football team. | ||
adaptation of existing intervention materials. | ||
sustainability of 4HS | ||
| Inclusive recruitment (aim 1) | ||
No of enquiries about study (Dec 2017–Sep 2018) | n = 126 parents enquired over a 10 month recruitment period. | |
Means of recruitment Type – printed leaflets, printed poster, website, social media, newspaper article (also publicised on newspaper Facebook page) | n = 34 posters and n = ~250 leaflets were placed in venues. Positive local press coverage shared on social media prompted 23% (n = 29) of total enquiries. | |
21% (n = 26) of 126 who enquired then signed up to the study with Intervention Group n = 14 Control Group n = 12.38%, n = 10 signed up via study website and 19%, n = 5 via face-to-face interaction at events. n = 2 newspaper articles (january 2017) prompted n = 16 and (May 2017) n = 9 enquiries about the study. | ||
reducing barriers and making it easier for families | 38.4%, n = 10 of participant families heard of study on local newspaper Facebook site or by seeing study poster on social media 35% (n = 9). | |
Representativeness of settings and individuals | ||
Number of participant Families and randomisation n = 26, % living in most deprived data zone in Scotland 61.5% | ||
How the programme was adapted | ||
Qualitative (co-production) no limits should be set for eligibility criteria, study website was co-created with group members, local imagery and simple language. ‘Dundee Family Health Study’ based on discussions during n = 5 workshops | ||
sustainability of 4HS | ||
| Feasibility of translating 4HS (aim 2) | ||
willingness of parents to participate (Dec 2017–March 2019) | At baseline, height and weight collected in100% of children, BIA in 58% (n = 15) and 54% (n = 14) wore an accelerometer. Parental questionnaires were completed in 100% (n = 26). | |
| Effectiveness | Correspondence (email/text/phone/letter) required in order to complete a baseline visit, from 1st contact (mean 15). | |
will be assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods and reported elsewhere | ||
will be assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods and reported elsewhere | ||
Intervention group - Total number of contacts (sms, email, face to face, letter) = 726, Mean number of contacts per family 726/13 = 56 (33–80). | ||
Consistency of implementation (one researcher, JG) | Control Group - Total number of contacts (sms, email, face to face, letter) = 371, Mean number of contacts per family 371/10 = 37 (22–62) | |
‘good’ proficiency of MI buy researcher (JG) see results | ||
will be assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods and reported elsewhere |
As defined by Scottish Index Of Multiple Deprivation SIMD quintile 1, contains the 20% most deprived data zones in Scotland.
Pragmatic features of 4HS using RE-AIM; dimensions, pragmatic questions and self rating score.
| RE-AIM Dimension | Key Pragmatic Questions Considered | Features of 4HS that support pragmatic criteria | RE-AIM dimensional self rating |
|---|---|---|---|
any child within eligible age range 2–5.5years. any family living in NE, Dundee (SIMD 1 or 2). thus participants were typical individuals. | 9 | ||
Primary outcome measures were acceptability & practicability of 4HS see Secondary outcomes include Quality of life measured using peds QL. | 8 | ||
No setting exclusions setting purposively selected e.g area of deprivation and with no other similar intervention. Researcher used participatory and inclusive approach to make links with key stakeholders in local area. Co-production approach | 8 | ||
One researcher delivered all elements of the study and delivered intervention. Local stakeholders involved in adaptations. Costs were minimised, suitable for low resourced setting. | 8 | ||
Explicit discussion about how 4HS will be operational beyond the research study through a test of change in routine practice within one heath board area in Scotland (sustainability) | 8 |
Available at http://www.re-aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/questions.pdf.
Available at http://www.re-aim.org/2017-pragmatic-applications-of-re-aim-for-health-care-initiatives-in-community-and-clinical-settings/https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2018/17_0271.htm.
(9–10 = excellent, 7–8, good but could do with a little work, 5–6 = fair, need planning <5 needs serious attention).
Assessment of Fidelity to MI: summary scores for five randomly selected interviews.
| MITI -4 outcome measure for determining competence in MI | MITI -4 basic competence (fair) | MITI -4 proficiency (good) | Researcher range scores | Researcher Average Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Clinician Rating –technical (cultivating + sustaining/2) | Average of 3 | Average of 4 | (3–4) | 3.2 (fair to good) |
| Global Clinician Rating – Relational (partnership + empathy/2) | Average of 3.5 | Average of 4 | (3–4) | 4.2 (good) |
| Reflection to Question Ratio (total reflection/total questions) | 1:1 | 2:1 | 2.75:1 (good) | |
| Percent Complex Reflections (CR/(SR + CR) | 40% | 50% | 48.5% (fair to good) | |
| Total MI-Adherent (SC + A + EA) | NA | NA | 10–19 | 15.4 |
| Total MI – non adherent (confront + persuade) | NA | NA | 0–3 | 1.4 |
Complex reflections (CR) typically add substantial meaning or emphasis to what client has said.
Simple Reflections (SR) convey understanding or facilitate client-clinician exchange.
Seeking Collaboration (SC) clinician explicitly attempts to share power or acknowledge expertise of client.
Affirmation (A) clinican utterance that accentuates something positive about the client.
Emphasising Autonomy (EA) utterances that clearly focus the responsibility with the client for decisions about change.