为生活在社区中的中风幸存者实施一种新的初级保健模式:混合方法过程评估。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-07-19 DOI:10.1186/s13063-025-08957-w
Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino, Grace Turner, Elizabeth Kreit, Emily G Blatchford, Julie Grant, Vicki Johnson, Ricky Mullis, Jonathan Mant
{"title":"为生活在社区中的中风幸存者实施一种新的初级保健模式:混合方法过程评估。","authors":"Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino, Grace Turner, Elizabeth Kreit, Emily G Blatchford, Julie Grant, Vicki Johnson, Ricky Mullis, Jonathan Mant","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-08957-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Survival after stroke is improving, leading to increased demand on primary care and community services to meet the long-term care needs of people living with stroke. Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a novel model of primary care for stroke survivors living in the community. IPCAS was a complex intervention, with intervention components aimed at stroke survivors and healthcare professionals. This process evaluation aimed to explore how the intervention was delivered in context and how participants engaged with the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The process evaluation was underpinned by the National Institute of Health's Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework. A mixed methods design was used to assess fidelity of design, training, delivery and engagement. Methods included questionnaires, video- and audio-recordings, observations, and interviews with staff and participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The IPCAS intervention reflected its theoretical underpinnings and was substantially different from usual care. Most components of the intervention were delivered with high or moderate fidelity and training fidelity was high. In particular, the checklist was considered useful. However, other components were less valued, in particular, the direct point of contact service which was hardly used by participants and the local directory of services which had variable take up by healthcare professionals. It was not possible to facilitate communication between primary and secondary care as originally planned. Furthermore, some practices used a GP or healthcare assistant to deliver the reviews, rather than a practice nurse as planned. Several participants did not feel the intervention was relevant for them due to their recovery and the time that had passed since their stroke.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This mixed-methods process evaluation provided novel insights into the design, delivery and engagement with a new model of primary care for stroke survivors. Despite high or moderate fidelity for delivery of most components of the intervention and high training fidelity, some components, such as the direct point of contact, were not valued and several participants did not feel the intervention was relevant for them.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03353519. Registered on November 27, 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"249"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing a new model of primary care for stroke survivors living in the community: a mixed-methods process evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino, Grace Turner, Elizabeth Kreit, Emily G Blatchford, Julie Grant, Vicki Johnson, Ricky Mullis, Jonathan Mant\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-025-08957-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Survival after stroke is improving, leading to increased demand on primary care and community services to meet the long-term care needs of people living with stroke. Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a novel model of primary care for stroke survivors living in the community. IPCAS was a complex intervention, with intervention components aimed at stroke survivors and healthcare professionals. This process evaluation aimed to explore how the intervention was delivered in context and how participants engaged with the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The process evaluation was underpinned by the National Institute of Health's Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework. A mixed methods design was used to assess fidelity of design, training, delivery and engagement. Methods included questionnaires, video- and audio-recordings, observations, and interviews with staff and participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The IPCAS intervention reflected its theoretical underpinnings and was substantially different from usual care. Most components of the intervention were delivered with high or moderate fidelity and training fidelity was high. In particular, the checklist was considered useful. However, other components were less valued, in particular, the direct point of contact service which was hardly used by participants and the local directory of services which had variable take up by healthcare professionals. It was not possible to facilitate communication between primary and secondary care as originally planned. Furthermore, some practices used a GP or healthcare assistant to deliver the reviews, rather than a practice nurse as planned. Several participants did not feel the intervention was relevant for them due to their recovery and the time that had passed since their stroke.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This mixed-methods process evaluation provided novel insights into the design, delivery and engagement with a new model of primary care for stroke survivors. Despite high or moderate fidelity for delivery of most components of the intervention and high training fidelity, some components, such as the direct point of contact, were not valued and several participants did not feel the intervention was relevant for them.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03353519. Registered on November 27, 2017.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276669/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-08957-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-08957-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脑卒中后的生存率正在提高,这导致对初级保健和社区服务的需求增加,以满足脑卒中患者的长期护理需求。改善脑卒中后初级保健(IPCAS)是一种针对生活在社区中的脑卒中幸存者的新型初级保健模式。IPCAS是一项复杂的干预措施,其干预成分针对中风幸存者和医疗保健专业人员。该过程评估旨在探索干预措施是如何在特定环境中实施的,以及参与者如何参与干预措施。方法:过程评估以美国国立卫生研究院行为改变联盟保真度框架为基础。采用混合方法设计来评估设计、培训、交付和参与的保真度。方法包括问卷调查、录像和录音、观察和对工作人员和参与者的访谈。结果:IPCAS干预反映了其理论基础,与常规护理有本质区别。干预的大部分成分以高或中等保真度交付,训练保真度高。特别是,该清单被认为是有用的。然而,其他组成部分的价值较低,特别是参与者几乎不使用的直接接触点服务和医疗保健专业人员使用不同的当地服务目录。不可能如原计划那样促进初级和二级保健之间的沟通。此外,一些实践使用全科医生或医疗保健助理来提供审查,而不是像计划的那样使用执业护士。由于他们的康复和中风后的时间,一些参与者认为干预与他们无关。结论:这种混合方法的过程评估为卒中幸存者初级保健新模式的设计、交付和参与提供了新的见解。尽管干预的大多数组成部分的交付具有较高或中等的保真度,训练的保真度也很高,但一些组成部分,如直接接触点,不受重视,一些参与者认为干预与他们无关。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03353519。2017年11月27日注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementing a new model of primary care for stroke survivors living in the community: a mixed-methods process evaluation.

Background: Survival after stroke is improving, leading to increased demand on primary care and community services to meet the long-term care needs of people living with stroke. Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a novel model of primary care for stroke survivors living in the community. IPCAS was a complex intervention, with intervention components aimed at stroke survivors and healthcare professionals. This process evaluation aimed to explore how the intervention was delivered in context and how participants engaged with the intervention.

Methods: The process evaluation was underpinned by the National Institute of Health's Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework. A mixed methods design was used to assess fidelity of design, training, delivery and engagement. Methods included questionnaires, video- and audio-recordings, observations, and interviews with staff and participants.

Results: The IPCAS intervention reflected its theoretical underpinnings and was substantially different from usual care. Most components of the intervention were delivered with high or moderate fidelity and training fidelity was high. In particular, the checklist was considered useful. However, other components were less valued, in particular, the direct point of contact service which was hardly used by participants and the local directory of services which had variable take up by healthcare professionals. It was not possible to facilitate communication between primary and secondary care as originally planned. Furthermore, some practices used a GP or healthcare assistant to deliver the reviews, rather than a practice nurse as planned. Several participants did not feel the intervention was relevant for them due to their recovery and the time that had passed since their stroke.

Conclusions: This mixed-methods process evaluation provided novel insights into the design, delivery and engagement with a new model of primary care for stroke survivors. Despite high or moderate fidelity for delivery of most components of the intervention and high training fidelity, some components, such as the direct point of contact, were not valued and several participants did not feel the intervention was relevant for them.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03353519. Registered on November 27, 2017.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信