Implementing the Effective Coach2Move Approach for Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Mobility Limitations in Physical Therapist Practice: A Multi-Methods Process Evaluation.

Objective: The aims of this study were to evaluate the adoption of and fidelity to the Coach2Move approach; identify differences between physical therapists with a specialization in geriatrics and physical therapists without a specialization; explore if level of adoption and specialization explain variances in effectiveness; and explore group differences in attitudes and experiences with implementation.

Methods: A multi-methods process evaluation of Coach2Move implementation through 2 education days, 3 peer-assessment meetings, and an adapted electronic health record was performed alongside a cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial comparing regular care physical therapy with Coach2Move. Participants were 36 physical therapists with a specialization (n = 17) and without a specialization (n = 19) who treated 292 community-dwelling older adults. Level of adoption and fidelity were analyzed by comparing pre-implementation scores with scores 1 year later. Coach2Move adoption was measured by e-assessment scores and fidelity through health record indicators. The impact of specialization and adoption on health outcomes was examined using a mixed-model ANOVA. Therapists' attitudes and experiences were collected through a survey based on semi-structured interviews.

Results: Mean total indicator scores on the e-assessment (adoption of a Coach2Move mindset) increased from baseline 17% (SD = 5%) to 47% (SD = 9%) at follow-up. Physical therapists with a specialization in geriatrics scored higher than physical therapists without (54% [SD = 6%] vs 41% [SD = 6%]). Mean indicator scores on health records (fidelity) increased from 35% (SD = 12%) at baseline to 47% (SD = 15%) at follow-up. Mean scores of physical therapists with a specialization in geriatrics were higher. Level of adoption and specialization (yes/no) did not explain the variance in effectiveness. Physical therapists identified important facilitators, including tailored education and peer-assessment meetings, while adequate reimbursement for the extra time investment was considered a necessity. Different workflows in practices were perceived as a barrier.

Conclusion: Implementation led to increased adoption and fidelity of the Coach2Move intervention by physical therapists but shows room for improvement. Attitudes towards the approach and its implementation were positive. Future implementation efforts on adoption could be improved by focusing on a fair compensation structure by third party payers and insurance companies and optimizing organizational and financial context within practices.

Impact: This study evaluated the implementation of Coach2Move, a clinical reasoning approach designed to increase physical activity and improve self-efficacy in older adults. Overall, the study demonstrates the potential of Coach2Move to be effectively adopted by physical therapists. However, addressing therapist compensation and adapting to practice workflows are important considerations for successful large-scale implementation.