Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19761
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPalmer, V Jen
dc.contributor.authorPiper, Donellaen
dc.contributor.authorGunn, Jen
dc.contributor.authorIedema, Ren
dc.contributor.authorRichard, Len
dc.contributor.authorFurler, Jen
dc.contributor.authorHerrman, Hen
dc.contributor.authorCameron, Jen
dc.contributor.authorGodbee, Ken
dc.contributor.authorPierce, Den
dc.contributor.authorCallander, Ren
dc.contributor.authorWeavell, Wen
dc.date.accessioned2016-12-22T09:47:00Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), p. 1-10en
dc.identifier.issn1609-4069en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19761-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherUniversity of Albertaen
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Qualitative Methodsen
dc.titleBalancing 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 Studyen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1609406916672216en
dcterms.accessRightsGolden
dc.subject.keywordsCorporate Governance and Stakeholder Engagementen
dc.subject.keywordsQuality Managementen
dc.subject.keywordsHealth Care Administrationen
local.contributor.firstnameV Jen
local.contributor.firstnameDonellaen
local.contributor.firstnameJen
local.contributor.firstnameRen
local.contributor.firstnameLen
local.contributor.firstnameJen
local.contributor.firstnameHen
local.contributor.firstnameJen
local.contributor.firstnameKen
local.contributor.firstnameDen
local.contributor.firstnameRen
local.contributor.firstnameWen
local.subject.for2008150313 Quality Managementen
local.subject.for2008111709 Health Care Administrationen
local.subject.for2008150303 Corporate Governance and Stakeholder Engagementen
local.subject.seo2008920208 Health Policy Evaluationen
local.subject.seo2008920204 Evaluation of Health Outcomesen
local.profile.schoolUNE Business Schoolen
local.profile.emaildpiper@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordune-20161026-101714en
local.publisher.placeCanadaen
local.format.startpage1en
local.format.endpage10en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume15en
local.identifier.issue1en
local.title.subtitleThe CORE Studyen
local.access.fulltextYesen
local.contributor.lastnamePalmeren
local.contributor.lastnamePiperen
local.contributor.lastnameGunnen
local.contributor.lastnameIedemaen
local.contributor.lastnameRicharden
local.contributor.lastnameFurleren
local.contributor.lastnameHerrmanen
local.contributor.lastnameCameronen
local.contributor.lastnameGodbeeen
local.contributor.lastnamePierceen
local.contributor.lastnameCallanderen
local.contributor.lastnameWeavellen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:dpiperen
local.profile.orcid0000-0002-5802-6380en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:19951en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleBalancing Opposing Forces - A Nested Process Evaluation Study Protocol for a Stepped Wedge Designed Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Experience Based Codesign Interventionen
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorPalmer, V Jen
local.search.authorPiper, Donellaen
local.search.authorGunn, Jen
local.search.authorIedema, Ren
local.search.authorRichard, Len
local.search.authorFurler, Jen
local.search.authorHerrman, Hen
local.search.authorCameron, Jen
local.search.authorGodbee, Ken
local.search.authorPierce, Den
local.search.authorCallander, Ren
local.search.authorWeavell, Wen
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.year.published2016en
local.fileurl.closedpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/2c86a028-e08a-4779-956e-bb5cde95703aen
local.subject.for2020420306 Health care administrationen
local.subject.for2020350701 Corporate governanceen
local.subject.for2020350715 Quality managementen
local.subject.seo2020200205 Health policy evaluationen
local.subject.seo2020200202 Evaluation of health outcomesen
local.codeupdate.date2022-03-24T15:42:34.595en
local.codeupdate.epersonghart4@une.edu.auen
local.codeupdate.finalisedtrueen
local.original.for2020350715 Quality managementen
local.original.for2020420306 Health care administrationen
local.original.for2020350701 Corporate governanceen
local.original.for2020350717 Stakeholder engagementen
local.original.seo2020200205 Health policy evaluationen
local.original.seo2020200202 Evaluation of health outcomesen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

13
checked on Mar 23, 2024

Page view(s)

1,128
checked on Mar 24, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.