Open Access
Subscription Access
Process evaluation plan of a patient-centered home visitation program for potentially frail community-dwelling older people in general practice
Abstract
Background: Evaluation studies examining the effectiveness of interventions tend to offer little insight into the mechanisms responsible for changes in outcomes. The present study has conducted a thorough process evaluation alongside a longitudinal quasi-experimental trial investigating the effects of a home visitation program for the early detection of health problems among potentially frail community-dwelling older people (≥ 75 years). We aim to describe the rationale for and steps undertaken in developing a process evaluation plan to identify the factors that influence the success or failure of this complex, patient-centered intervention within the primary care setting.
Method: Using a theoretical framework underlying the process evaluation, process evaluation questions are formulated per component of the framework (i.e., implementation fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, reach, recruitment and context). The process evaluation plan shows how both quantitative (e.g., structured registration forms) and qualitative methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews) are applied in gathering process data for a complex, patient-centered intervention integrated within general practices. Process data are gathered with either formative or summative purposes among practice nurses and general practitioners from participating general practices and a purposive sample of older people.
Conclusion: Conducting a process evaluation alongside a clinical trial will assist in deciding to what extent the intervention is effective, as well as what factors contribute to the intervention’s effectiveness. The insights gained are imperative for the development of patient-centered interventions that are likely to be sustained when implemented in the intended context.Keywords
References
Linnan, L. & Steckler, A. (2002). Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. An overview. In: Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. (A. Steckler & L. Linnan, eds.), pp. 1-24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harachi, T.W., Abbott, R.D., Catalano, R.F., Haggerty, K.P. & Fleming, C.B. (1999). Opening the black box: using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community Psychology 27, 711-731.
Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P. & Shiell, A. (2002). Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56, 119-127.
Flottorp, S., Håvelsrud, K. & Oxman, A.D. (2003). Process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial of tailored interventions to implement guidelines in primary care. Why is it so hard to change practice? Family Practice 20, 333-339.
McKenna, H.P., Ashton, S. & Keeney, S. (2004). Barriers to evidence-based practice in primary care. Journal of Advanced Nursing 45, 178-189.
Grol, R. (2001). Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Medical Care 39 (Supplement 2,8) 46-54.
Bosch, M., Van der Weijden, T., Wensing, M. & Grol, R. (2007). Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 13, 161-168.
Lewin, S., Glenton, C. & Oxman, A.D. (2009). Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. British Medical Journal 339, b3496. DOI:10.1136/bmj.b3496
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I. & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal 337, a1655.
Oakley, A., Strange, V., Bonell, C., Allen, E., Stephenson, J. & RIPPLE Study Team. (2006). Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. British Medical Journal 332, 413-416.
Medical Research Council. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: MRC.
Glasgow, R.E. & Emmons, K.M. (2007). How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annual Review of Public Health 28, 413-433.
Bradley, F., Wiles, R., Kinmonth, A-L., Mant, D. & Gantley, M. (1999). Development and evaluation of complex interventions in health services research: case study of the Southampton heart integrated care project (SHIP). British Medical Journal 318, 711-715.
Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E.H. & Grumbach, K. (2002). Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. Journal of the American Medical Association 288, 1775-1779.
Boult, C., Karm, L. & Groves, C. (2008). Improving chronic care: the "Guided Care" model. The Permanente Journal 12, 50-54.
Conrad, K.J., Randolph, F.L., Kirby, M.W. & Bebout, R.R. (1999). Creating and using logic models: four perspectives. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 17, 17-31.
Baranowski, T. & Stables, G. (2000). Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Education and Behavior 27, 157-166.
Saunders, R.P., Evans, M.H. & Joshi, P. (2005). Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promotion Practice 6, 134-147.
May, C.R. (2006). A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Services Research 6, 86.
May, C.R., Mair, F.S., Dowrick, C.F. & Finch, T.L. (2007). Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model. BMC Family Practice 8, 42.
Creswell, J.W., Fetters, M.D. & Ivankova, N.V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine 2, 7-12.
Lemieux-Charles, L. & McGuire, W.L. (2006). What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A review of the literature. Medical Care Research and Review 63, 263-300.
Grundy, E. & Sloggett, A. (2003). Health inequalities in the older population: the role of personal capital, social resources and socio-economic circumstances. Social Science and Medicine 56, 935-947.
Dutch Association for General Practitioners. (2007). NHG-Standpunt Toekomstvisie Huisartsenzorg. Huisartsgeneeskunde voor ouderen [Statement of the NHG, Future of General Practitioner Care. General practice medicine for older people]. Utrecht: Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap.
Dierick-van Daele, A.T.M., Spreeuwenberg, C., Derckx, E.W.C.C., Van Leeuwen, Y., Toemen, T., Legius, M., Janssen, J.J.M., Metsemakers, J.F.M. & Vrijhoef, H.J.M. (2010). The value of nurse practitioners in Dutch general practices. Quality in Primary Care 18, 231-241.
Laurant, M., Reeves, D., Hermens, R., Braspenning, J., Grol, R. & Sibbald, B. (2004). Substitution of doctors by nurses in primary care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4, Art. No.: CD001271.
Voogdt-Pruis, H.R., Beusmans, G.H.M.I., Gorgels, A.P.M., Kester, A.D.M. & Van Ree, J.W. (2010). Effectiveness of nurse-delivered cardiovascular risk management in primary care: a randomised trial. British Journal of General Practice 60, 40-46.
Stijnen, M.M.N., Jansen, M.W.J., Vrijhoef, H.J.M. & Duimel-Peeters, I.G.P. (2012). Development of a home visitation programme for the early detection of health problems in potentially frail community-dwelling older people by general practices. European Journal of Ageing. In press. doi:10.1007/s10433-012-0251-7.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wenger, G.C. (2001). Interviewing older people. In: Handbook of interview research: context & method. (J.F. Gubrium & J.A. Holstein, eds.), pp. 259-278. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kirkevold, M. & Bergland, A. (2007). The quality of qualitative data: Issues to consider when interviewing participants who have difficulties providing detailed accounts of their experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being 2, 68-75.
Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27, 237-246.
Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15, 1277-1288.
Ellard, D.R., Taylor, S.J.C., Parsons, S. & Thorogood, M. (2011). The OPERA trial: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial of an exercise intervention for older people in residential and nursing accommodation. Trials 12, 28.
Grimshaw, J.M., Zwarenstein, M., Tetroe, J.M., Godin, G., Graham, I.D., Lemyre, L., Eccles, M.P., Johnston, M., Francis, J.J., Hux, J., O'Rourke, K., Légaré, F. & Presseau, J. (2007). Looking inside the black box: a theory-based process evaluation alongside a randomised controlled tral of printed educational materials (the Ontario printed educational message, OPEM) to improve referral and prescribing practices in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Implementation Science 2, 38.
Helitzer, D. & Yoon, S. (2002). Process evaluation of the adolescent social action program in New Mexico. In: Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. (A. Steckler & L. Linnan, eds.), pp. 83-113. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Alessi, C.A., Stuck, A.E., Aronow, H.U., Yuhas, K.E., Bula, C.J., Madison, R., Gold, M., Segal-Gidan, F., Fanello, R., Rubenstein, L.Z. & Beck, J.C. (1997). The process of care in preventive in-home comprehensive geriatric assessment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 45, 1044-1050.
Van Haastregt, J.C.M., Van Rossum, E., Diederiks, J.P.M., De Witte, L.P., Voorhoeve, P.M. & Crebolder, H.F.J.M. (2002). Process-evaluation of a home visit program to prevent falls and mobility impairments among elderly people at risk. Patient Education and Counseling 47, 301-309.
Nicolaides-Bouman, A., Rossum, E.V., Habets, H., Kempen, G.I.J.M. & Knipschild, P. (2007). Home visiting program for older people with health problems: process evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 58, 425-435.
Huss, A., Stuck, A.E., Rubenstein, L.Z., Egger, M. & Clough-Gorr, K.M. (2008). Multidimensional preventive home visit programs for community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 63A, 298-307.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th edn. New York: Free Press.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v2i2.716
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.