British Columbia Healthy Connections Project process evaluation: a mixed methods protocol to describe the implementation and delivery of the Nurse-Family Partnership in Canada

BMC Nursing

Charlotte Waddell⁴  Nicole Catherine⁴  Harriet L. MacMillan³  Andrea Gonzalez²  Debbie Sheehan⁴  Susan M. Jack¹ 

[1] School of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton L8S 4K1ON, Canada;Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Offord Centre for Child Studies, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton L8S 4K1ON, Canada;Departments of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, and of Pediatrics, Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton L8S 4K1, ON, Canada;Children’s Health Policy Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Room 2400, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver V6B 5K3, BC, Canada

关键词: Intervention;    Mixed methods;    Nurse-Family Partnership;    Public health nurses;    Home visitation;    Process evaluation;   

Others  :  1225624
DOI  :  10.1186/s12912-015-0097-3

 received in 2014-12-16, accepted in 2015-09-09,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Nurse-Family Partnership is a home visitation program for first-time, socially and economically disadvantaged mothers. The effectiveness of this public health intervention has been well established in the United States; however, whether the same beneficial outcomes will be obtained within the Canadian context is unknown. As part of the British Columbia Healthy Connections Project, which includes a trial comparing Nurse-Family Partnership’s effectiveness with existing services in British Columbia, we are conducting a process evaluation to describe and explain how the intervention is implemented and delivered across five regional Health Authorities.

Methods

A convergent parallel mixed methods research design will be used to address the process evaluation objectives. The principles of interpretive description will guide all sampling, data collection and analytic decisions in the qualitative component of the study. The full population of public health nurses and supervisors (n = 71) will discuss their experiences of implementing and delivering the program in interviews (or focus groups). Managers (n = 5–15) responsible for this portfolio will also be interviewed annually. Fidelity reports with quantitative data on the reach and the dose of the intervention will be collected and analyzed. Summaries of team meetings and supervisory sessions will be analyzed. Data will be used to compare, corroborate and explain results and variances across the five regional Health Authorities.

Discussion

The process evaluation results will be of immediate instrumental use to the program implementers to inform intervention delivery. Findings will contribute to the emerging body of evidence surrounding: 1) professional nurse home visitation practice issues; 2) best practices for meeting the needs of families living in rural and remote communities; 3) a deeper understanding of how health and social issues such as mental health problems including substance misuse and exposure to intimate partner violence affect a young mother’s capacity to parent; and 4) strategies to support professionals from the primary care, public health and child welfare sectors to work collaboratively to meet the needs of children and families who are at risk or experiencing maltreatment.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Jack et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Nurse-Family Partnership; http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org (2011). Accessed 9 May 2015.
• [2]Olds DL, Sadler L, Kitzman H: Programs for parents of infants and toddlers: Recent evidence from randomized trials. J Child Psychol Psy 2007, 48:355-391.
• [3]Olds DL, Kitzman H, Knudtson MS, Anson E, Smith JA, Cole R: Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: results of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics 2014, 168:800-6.
• [4]MacMillan HL, Wathen CN, Barlow J, et al.: Interventions to prevent child maltreatment and associated impairment. Lancet 2009, 373:250-66.
• [5]Nurse-Family Partnership: Nurse-Family Partnership model elements. http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/communities/model-elements (2011). Accessed 9 May 2015.
• [6]Prevention Research Center for Family and Child Health: Nurse-Family Partnership international program. http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/research/programs/prc/research/international/Pages/international.aspx (2015). Accessed 9 May 2015.
• [7]Barnes J: From evidence-base to practice: implementation of the Nurse Family Partnership programme in England. J Child Serv 2010, 5:4-17.
• [8]Jack SM, Busser LD, Sheehan D, Gonzalez A, Zwygers EJ, MacMillan HL: Adaptation and implementation of the Nurse-Family Partnership in Canada. Can J Public Health 2012, 103(Suppl 1):S42-S48.
• [9]Kurtz Landy C, Jack SM, Wahoush O, Sheehan D: MacMillan L and NFP Hamilton Research Team: Mothers experiences in the Nurse-Family Partnership program: a qualitative case study. BMC Nurs 2012, 11:15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Jack SM, MacMillan HL. Adaptation and evaluation of the Nurse-Family Partnership in Canada. Early Childhood Matters 2014, June: http://www.bernardvanleer.org/Responsive-parenting-a-strategy-to-prevent-violence. Accessed 9 May 2015.
• [11]Children’s Health Policy Centre: BC Healthy Connections Project. http://childhealthpolicy.ca/bc-healthy-connections-project/ (2015). Accessed 9 May 2015.
• [12]Medical Research Council: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. Medical Research Council, London; 2008.
• [13]Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009, 339:b3496.
• [14]Linnan L, Steckler A: Process evaluation for public health interventions ad research: an overview. In Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. Edited by Steckler A, Linnan L. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco; 2002:1-24.
• [15]Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P: Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract 2005, 6:134-147.
• [16]Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA; 2011.
• [17]Thorne S: Interpretive Description. CA: Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek; 2008.
• [18]MacDougall C, Baum F: The devil’s advocate: a strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qual Health Res 1997, 7:532-541.
• [19]Jack SM, Ford-Gilboe M, Wathen CN, Davidov DD, McNaughton DB, Coben JH, Olds DL, MacMillan HL: NFP IPV Research Team: Development of a nurse home visitation intervention for intimate partner violence. BMC Health Services Res 2012, 12:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Thorne S, Reimer Kirkham S, O’Flynn-Magee K: The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods 2004, 3:1-11.
• [21]Hsieh H, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:1277-1288.
• [22]MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B: Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropol Methods 1998, 10:31-36.
• [23]Boller K, Daro D, Del Grosso P, Cole R, Paulsell D, Hart B, et al.: Making replication work: building infrastructure to implement, scale-up, and sustain evidence-based early childhood home visiting programs with fidelity. Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ; 2014. Contract No.: GS-10F-0050L/ HHSP233201200516G
• [24]Krefting L: Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J of Occup Ther 1991, 24:214-222.
• [25]Wells M, Williams B, Treweek S, Coyle J, Taylor J: Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials 2012, 13:95. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA: Understanding evidence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health 2009, 99:1576-1583.
• [27]Bronfenbrenner U: The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments By Nature and Design. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; 1979.
• [28]Bowlby J: Attachment and Loss. Hogarth Press, London, UK; 1969.
• [29]Bandura A: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psych Rev 1977, 84:191-215.
• [30]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Toward a comprehensive model of change. In Treating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change. Edited by Miller WR, Heather N. Plenum Press, New York; 1986:3-27.
• [31]O’Brien R. Nurse-Family Partnership’s theory of change logic model http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/assets/PDF/Communities/TOC-Logic-Model (2008). Accessed 9 May 2015.