Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19761
Title: | Balancing Opposing Forces - A Nested Process Evaluation Study Protocol for a Stepped Wedge Designed Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Experience Based Codesign Intervention: The CORE Study | Contributor(s): | Palmer, V J (author); Piper, Donella (author) ; Gunn, J (author); Iedema, R (author); Richard, L (author); Furler, J (author); Herrman, H (author); Cameron, J (author); Godbee, K (author); Pierce, D (author); Callander, R (author); Weavell, W (author) | Publication Date: | 2016 | Open Access: | Yes | DOI: | 10.1177/1609406916672216 | Handle Link: | https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19761 | Abstract: | Background: Process evaluations are essential to understand the contextual, relational, and organizational and system factors of complex interventions. The guidance for developing process evaluations for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has until recently however, been fairly limited. Method/Design: A nested process evaluation (NPE) was designed and embedded across all stages of a stepped wedge cluster RCT called the CORE study. The aim of the CORE study is to test the effectiveness of an experience-based codesign methodology for improving psychosocial recovery outcomes for people living with severe mental illness (service users). Process evaluation data collection combines qualitative and quantitative methods with four aims: (1) to describe organizational characteristics, service models, policy contexts, and government reforms and examine the interaction of these with the intervention; (2) to understand how the codesign intervention works, the cluster variability in implementation, and if the intervention is or is not sustained in different settings; (3) to assist in the interpretation of the primary and secondary outcomes and determine if the causal assumptions underpinning the codesign interventions are accurate; and (4) to determine the impact of a purposefully designed engagement model on the broader study retention and knowledge transfer in the trial. Discussion: Process evaluations require prespecified study protocols but finding a balance between their iterative nature and the structure offered by protocol development is an important step forward. Taking this step will advance the role of qualitative research within trials research and enable more focused data collection to occur at strategic points within studies. | Publication Type: | Journal Article | Source of Publication: | International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), p. 1-10 | Publisher: | University of Alberta | Place of Publication: | Canada | ISSN: | 1609-4069 | Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: | 150313 Quality Management 111709 Health Care Administration 150303 Corporate Governance and Stakeholder Engagement |
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: | 420306 Health care administration 350701 Corporate governance 350715 Quality management |
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2008: | 920208 Health Policy Evaluation 920204 Evaluation of Health Outcomes |
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: | 200205 Health policy evaluation 200202 Evaluation of health outcomes |
Peer Reviewed: | Yes | HERDC Category Description: | C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal |
---|---|
Appears in Collections: | Journal Article |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format |
---|
SCOPUSTM
Citations
13
checked on Mar 23, 2024
Page view(s)
1,128
checked on Mar 24, 2024
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.