Project description:BackgroundThere is little systematic operational guidance about how best to develop complex interventions to reduce the gap between practice and evidence. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting the development and use of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to advance the science of implementation research.MethodsThe intervention was developed considering three main components: theory, evidence, and practical issues. We used a four-step approach, consisting of guiding questions, to direct the choice of the most appropriate components of an implementation intervention: Who needs to do what, differently? Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? And how can behaviour change be measured and understood?ResultsA complex implementation intervention was designed that aimed to improve acute low back pain management in primary care. We used the TDF to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake of evidence into practice and to guide the choice of intervention components. These components were then combined into a cohesive intervention. The intervention was delivered via two facilitated interactive small group workshops. We also produced a DVD to distribute to all participants in the intervention group. We chose outcome measures in order to assess the mediating mechanisms of behaviour change.ConclusionsWe have illustrated a four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework. The method of development provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions. While this framework should be iteratively adjusted and refined to suit other contexts and settings, we believe that the four-step process should be maintained as the primary framework to guide researchers through a comprehensive intervention development process.

Project description:Voluntary, rights-based family planning upholds women's right to determine freely the number and spacing of their children. However, low-resource settings like Uganda still face a high unmet need for family planning. And, while urban areas are often indicated to have better access to health services, emerging evidence is revealing intra-urban socio-economic differentials in family planning utilization. To address the barriers to contraceptive use in these settings, understanding community-specific challenges and involving them in tailored intervention design is crucial. This paper describes the use of co-design, a human-centred design tool, to develop context-specific interventions that promote voluntary family planning in urban settings in Eastern Uganda. A five-stage co-design approach was used: 1) Empathize: primary data was collected to understand the problem and people involved, 2) Define: findings were shared with 56 participants in a three-day in-person co-design workshop, including community members, family planning service providers and leaders, 3) Ideate: workshop participants generated potential solutions, 4) Prototype: participants prioritized prototypes, and 5) Testing: user feedback was sought about the prototypes. A package of ten interventions was developed. Five interventions targeted demand-side barriers to family planning uptake, four targeted supply-side barriers, and one addressed leadership and governance barriers. Involving a diverse group of co-creators provided varied experiences and expertise to develop the interventions. Participants expressed satisfaction with their involvement in finding solutions to challenges in their communities. However, power imbalances and language barriers were identified by the participants as potential barriers to positive group dynamics and discussion quality. To address them, participants were separated into groups, and medical terminologies were simplified during brainstorming sessions. These changes improved participation and maximized the contributions of all participants. It is therefore important to consider participant characteristics and their potential impact on the process, especially when engaging diverse participant groups, and implement measures to mitigate their effects.

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand whether interventions are effective, we need to know whether the interventions are delivered as planned (with fidelity) and engaged with. To measure fidelity and engagement effectively, high-quality measures are needed. We outline a five-step method which can be used to develop quality measures of fidelity and engagement for complex health interventions. We provide examples from a fidelity study conducted within an evaluation of an intervention aimed to increase independence in dementia.MethodsWe propose five steps that can be systematically used to develop fidelity checklists for researchers, providers, and participants to measure fidelity and engagement. These steps include the following: (1) reviewing previous measures, (2) analysing intervention components and developing a framework outlining the content of the intervention, (3) developing fidelity checklists and coding guidelines, (4) obtaining feedback about the content and wording of checklists and guidelines, and (5) piloting and refining checklists and coding guidelines to assess and improve reliability.ResultsThree fidelity checklists that can be used reliably were developed to measure fidelity of and engagement with, the Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention. As these measures were designed to be used by researchers, providers, and participants, we developed two versions of the checklists: one for participants and one for researchers and providers.ConclusionsThe five steps that we propose can be used to develop psychometrically robust and implementable measures of fidelity and engagement for complex health interventions that can be used by different target audiences. By considering quality when developing measures, we can be more confident in the interpretation of intervention outcomes drawn from fidelity and engagement studies. Statement of contribution What is already known on the subject? Fidelity and engagement can be measured using a range of methods, such as observation and self-report. Studies seldom report psychometric and implementation qualities of fidelity measures. What does this study add? A method for developing fidelity and engagement measures for complex health interventions. Guidance on how to consider quality when developing fidelity and engagement measures.

Project description:BackgroundIn the coming years, major governance changes in the form of policy directives and regulations will catalyse major top-down change with respect to animal health on European farms in an effort to combat the OneHealth threat of antimicrobial resistance. This top-down approach must be met with bottom-up strategies to ensure target actors (namely, farmers and vets) are supported and motivated to change their practices, thus, avoiding unintended consequences of forced change. Although much behavioural research has explored the factors influencing antimicrobial practices on farms, a gap exists translating these findings into evidence-based behaviour change interventions that can be put into practice. The current study aims to fill this gap. It provides insights into identifying, understanding, and changing the behaviours of farmers and veterinarians with respect to the responsible use of antimicrobials in farming.ResultsThrough an inter-disciplinary and multi-actor approach, the study combines scientific knowledge from the behavioural sciences and animal health sciences, coupled with tacit knowledge from a co-design, participatory approach to recommend seven behaviour change interventions that can help to support good practices amongst farmers and vets, with respect to animal health, and reduce the use of antimicrobials on farms. The behaviour change interventions include message framing; OneHealth awareness campaign; specialised communications training; on-farm visual prompts and tools; social support strategies (for both farmers and vets); and antimicrobial use monitoring. The study details each intervention with respect to their evidence base and scientific concept, grounded in behavioural science, along with stakeholder feedback on design and delivery of the interventions.ConclusionsThese behaviour change interventions can be taken, adapted, and put into practice by the agri-food community to support good animal health practices and responsible antimicrobial use on farms.

Dataset Information

Addressing antimicrobial resistance through community engagement: a framework for developing contextually relevant and impactful behaviour change interventions

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets