Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSegrott, J
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, S
dc.contributor.authorRothwell, H
dc.contributor.authorScourfield, J
dc.contributor.authorFoxcroft, D
dc.contributor.authorGillespie, D
dc.contributor.authorHolliday, J
dc.contributor.authorHood, K
dc.contributor.authorHurlow, C
dc.contributor.authorMorgan-Trimmer, S
dc.contributor.authorPhillips, C
dc.contributor.authorReed, H
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, Z
dc.contributor.authorMoore, L
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-03T15:15:30Z
dc.date.issued2017-01-11
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Process evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and how intervention-context interactions influence programme delivery. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation nested within a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (SFP 10-14) in Wales, UK. It uses Extended Normalisation Process Theory to theorise how interaction between SFP 10-14 and local delivery systems - particularly practitioner commitment/capability and organisational capacity - influenced delivery of intended programme activities: fidelity (adherence to SFP 10-14 content and implementation requirements); dose delivered; dose received (participant engagement); participant recruitment and reach (intervention attendance). Methods: A mixed methods design was utilised. Fidelity assessment sheets (completed by practitioners), structured observation by researchers, and routine data were used to assess: adherence to programme content; staffing numbers and consistency; recruitment/retention; and group size and composition. Interviews with practitioners explored implementation processes and context. Results: Adherence to programme content was high - with some variation, linked to practitioner commitment to, and understanding of, the intervention's content and mechanisms. Variation in adherence rates was associated with the extent to which multi-agency delivery team planning meetings were held. Recruitment challenges meant that targets for group size/composition were not always met, but did not affect adherence levels or family engagement. Targets for staffing numbers and consistency were achieved, though capacity within multi-agency networks reduced over time. Conclusions: Extended Normalisation Process Theory provided a useful framework for assessing implementation and explaining variation by examining intervention-context interactions. Findings highlight the need for process evaluations to consider both the structural and process components of implementation to explain whether programme activities are delivered as intended and why.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThe research was funded by the National Prevention Research Initiative (https://www.mrc.ac.uk/research/initiatives/national-prevention-research-initiative-npri/; Award no. G0802128). Funding partners are: Alzheimer's Research Trust; Alzheimer's Society; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; British Heart Foundation; Cancer Research UK; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorate; Department of Health; Diabetes UK; Economic and Social Research Council; Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; Health & Social Care Research & Development Office for Northern Ireland; Medical Research Council; The Stroke Association; Welsh Government; and World Cancer Research Fund. The Welsh Government provided c.£675k of partnership funding, to cover the cost of implementation in three trial areas, and the associated training and support provided by the Cardiff Strengthening Families Programme team. Further support from Welsh Government provided £208 k to cover programme delivery in six trial sites from August 2011-July 2012. The Cardiff Strengthening Families Programme team also provided financial support for programme delivery and trial recruitment in schools. The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. Laurence Moore was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/14) and Chief Scientist Office at the Scottish Government Health Directorates (SPHSU14). SEWTU is funded by Welsh Government.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 3, pp. 255-265.en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.01.002
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/33671
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29302612en_GB
dc.rights© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectExtended Normalisation Process Theoryen_GB
dc.subjectFamily-based preventionen_GB
dc.subjectFidelityen_GB
dc.subjectImplementationen_GB
dc.subjectProcess evaluationen_GB
dc.subjectRandomised controlled trialen_GB
dc.subjectStrengthening Families Programme 10–14en_GB
dc.subjectUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.titleAn application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10-14) in Wales, UK.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2018-08-03T15:15:30Z
dc.identifier.issn2352-8273
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalSSM - Population Healthen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record