Design of a process evaluation of the implementation of a physical activity and sports stimulation programme in Dutch rehabilitation setting: ReSpAct

Implementation Science

Lucas HV van der Woude²  Rienk Dekker³  Marjo Duijf¹  Florentina J Hettinga⁵  Cees P van der Schans⁴  Roelina A Alingh²  Femke Hoekstra² 

[1] Stichting Onbeperkt Sportief, Bunnik, The Netherlands;University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Rehabilitation, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Groningen, The Netherlands;University Medical Center Groningen, Center for Sports Medicine, Groningen, The Netherlands;Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Research and Innovation Group in Health Care and Nursing, Groningen, The Netherlands;University of Essex, School of Biological Sciences, Centre of Sport and Exercise Science, Colchester, UK

关键词: Health promotion;    Chronic disease;    Disability;    Process evaluation;    Active lifestyle;    Physical activity;    Rehabilitation;    Dissemination;    Implementation;   

Others  :  1146450
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0127-7

 received in 2014-07-31, accepted in 2014-09-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is a growing interest to study the transfer of evidence-based information into daily practice. The evidence-based programme Rehabilitation, Sports and Exercise (RSE) that aims to stimulate an active lifestyle during and after a rehabilitation period in people with a disability and/or chronic disease is prepared for nationwide dissemination. So far, however, little is known about the implementation of a new programme to stimulate physical activity in people with a disability in a rehabilitation setting. Therefore, a process evaluation of the implementation of the RSE programme within 18 Dutch rehabilitation centres and hospitals is performed in order to gain more insight into the implementation process itself and factors that facilitate or hamper the implementation process. This paper describes the study design of this process evaluation.

Methods

During a three-year period, the adoption, implementation and continuation of the RSE programme is monitored and evaluated in 12 rehabilitation centres and 6 hospitals with a rehabilitation department in The Netherlands. The main process outcomes are: recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, satisfaction, maintenance and context. The process outcomes are evaluated at different levels (organisational and patient) and different time points. Data collection includes both quantitative (online registration system and questionnaires) and qualitative (focus groups and semi-structured interviews) methods.

Discussion

The nationwide dissemination of an evidence-based programme to stimulate physical activity and sports during and after a rehabilitation period is extensively monitored and evaluated on different levels (organization and patients) using mixed methods. The study will contribute to the science of translating evidence-based programmes into daily practice of the rehabilitation care. The results of the study can be used to further optimize the content of the RSE programme and to facilitate the implementation in other health facilities. Furthermore, the results of the study can help future implementation processes in the rehabilitation setting.

Trial registration

The study is registered by The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR3961 webcite.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hoekstra et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Heath GW, Parra DC, Sarmiento OL, Andersen LB, Owen N, Goenka S, Montes F, Brownson RC: Evidence-based intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world. Lancet 2012, 380:272-281.
• [2]Morris JH, Macgillivray S, McFarlane S: Interventions to promote long-term participation in physical activity after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014, 95:956-967.
• [3]Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Kerner JF, Glasgow RE: Methodologic challenges in disseminating evidence-based interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med 2006, 31:S24-S34.
• [4]Rimmer JH, Marques AC: Physical activity for people with disabilities. Lancet 2012, 380:193-195.
• [5]Matthews L, Kirk A, Macmillan F, Mutrie N: Can physical activity interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes be translated into practice settings? A systematic review using the RE-AIM framework. Transl Behav Med 2014, 4:60-78.
• [6]Sallis JF, Owen N, Fotheringham MJ: Behavioral epidemiology: a systematic framework to classify phases of research on health promotion and disease prevention. Ann Behav Med 2000, 22:294-298.
• [7]Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:1322-1327.
• [8]Grol RW, Wensing M: Implementatie: Effectieve Verbetering van de Patiëntenzorg. Elsevier Gezondheidszorg, Maarsen; 2006.
• [9]Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York; 2003.
• [10]Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T: Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. Int J Qual Health Care 2004, 16:107-123.
• [11]Huijg JM, Crone MR, Verheijden MW, van der Zouwe N, Middelkoop BJ, Gebhardt WA: Factors influencing the adoption, implementation, and continuation of physical activity interventions in primary health care: a Delphi study.BMC Fam Pract 2013, 14:142.
• [12]Durlak JA, DuPre EP: Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008, 41:327-350.
• [13]Steckler A, Linnan L: Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. CA: Jossey-Bass, San Francisco; 2002.
• [14]Wierenga D, Engbers LH, Van Empelen P, Duijts S, Hildebrandt VH, Van Mechelen W: What is actually measured in process evaluations for worksite health promotion programs: a systematic review.BMC Public Health 2013, 13:1190.
• [15]Rimmer JH: Getting beyond the plateau: bridging the gap between rehabilitation and community-based exercise. PM R 2012, 4:857-861.
• [16]van der Ploeg HP, Streppel KR, van der Beek AJ, van der Woude LH, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, van Harten WH, van Mechelen W: Counselling increases physical activity behaviour nine weeks after rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med 2006, 40:223-229.
• [17]van der Ploeg HP, Streppel KR, van der Beek AJ, van der Woude LH, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, van Harten WH, van Mechelen W: Successfully improving physical activity behavior after rehabilitation. Am J Health Promot 2007, 21:153-159.
• [18]Alingh RA, Hoekstra F, van der Schans CP, Hettinga FJ, Dekker R, van der Woude LHV: ReSpAct: a dose-respons study into a person-tailored physical activity and sports stimulation program for patients. In Rehabilitation: Mobility, Exercise & Sports. Wenckebach Instituut, Groningen; 2014.
• [19]Guldbrandsson K: From news to everyday use. The difficult art of implementation. In Book From News to Everyday use. The Difficult art of Implementation. Swedish National Institute of Public Health, City; 2008.
• [20]Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, Stillman L, Blachman M, Dunville R, Saul J: Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008, 41:171-181.
• [21]Miller WR: RS: motivational interviewing: helping people change, third edition edn. The Guilford Press, New York; 2013.
• [22]van der Ploeg HP, van der Beek AJ, van der Woude LH, van Mechelen W: Physical activity for people with a disability: a conceptual model. Sports Med 2004, 34:639-649.
• [23][www.onbeperktsportief.nl/rsb] webcite Rehabilitation, sports and exercise..
• [24][www.respact.nl] webcite ReSpAct: rehabiliation, sports and active lifestyle..
• [25]Schijvens L, Alingh RA, Duijf M, Hoekstra F, Leutscher H: Handboek Revalidatie, Sport en Bewegen. Stichting Onbeperkt Sportief, Bunnik; 2014.
• [26]Wierenga D, Engbers LH, van Empelen P, Hildebrandt VH, van Mechelen W: The design of a real-time formative evaluation of the implementation process of lifestyle interventions at two worksites using a 7-step strategy (BRAVO@Work).BMC Public Health 2012, 12:619.
• [27]Hays RD, Morales LS: The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med 2001, 33:350-357.
• [28]Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM: The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ 1993, 2:217-227.
• [29]VanderZee KI, Sanderman R, Heyink JW, de Haes H: Psychometric qualities of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0: a multidimensional measure of general health status. Int J Behav Med 1996, 3:104-122.
• [30]Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH, Kromhout D: Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:1163-1169.
• [31]Braun VaC V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006, 3:77-101.
• [32]Estabrooks PA, Glasgow RE: Translating effective clinic-based physical activity interventions into practice. Am J Prev Med 2006, 31:S45-S56.
• [33]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.
• [34]Nederland R: Brancherapport revalidatie 2010. In Book Brancherapport Revalidatie 2010. Revalidatie Nederland, City; 2011.
• [35]Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative Methods for Health Research. Sage Publications Ltd, London; 2013.
• [36]Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000, 320:50-52.