Protocol for process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of family-led rehabilitation post stroke (ATTEND) in India

Stroke patient and stakeholder engagement (SPSE): concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks-a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Involving stroke patients in clinical research through patient engagement aims to ensure that studies are patient-centered, and may help ensure they are feasible, ethical, and credible, ultimately leading to enhanced trust and communication between researchers and the patient community. In this study, we have conducted a scoping review to identify existing evidence and gaps in SPSE.

METHODS

The five-step approach outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, provided the structure for this review. To find relevant articles, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to February 2024. Additionally, the review team conducted a hand search using Google Scholar, key journals, and references of highly relevant articles. Reviewers screened articles, selecting eligible English-language ones with available full texts, and extracted data from them into a pre-designed table tested by the research team.

RESULT

Of the 1002 articles initially identified, 21 proved eligible. Stakeholder engagement primarily occurred during the design phase of studies and within the studies using qualitative methodologies. Although the engagement of stakeholders in the research process is increasing, practice regarding terminology and principles of implementation remains variable. Researchers have recognized the benefits of stakeholder engagement, but have also faced numerous challenges that often arise during the research process.

CONCLUSION

The current study identifies stakeholder groups and the benefits and challenges researchers face in implementing their engagement. Given existing challenges and limited specific models or frameworks, it is suggested to explore applied recommendations for stakeholder engagement in future studies, that may enhance stakeholder engagement, overcome obstacles, and unify researchers' understanding of engagement and implementation.

Evaluation of an inpatient occupation-based group program using a process evaluation framework

INTRODUCTION

Occupation-based groups are used in inpatient rehabilitation to enhance delivery and intensity of intervention; however, little research is available to understand their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to examine the process of an occupation-based group to understand mechanisms and success factors.

METHODS

A mixed methods process evaluation using an evidence-based framework guided implementation and analysis. Participants were those involved in the 'LifeSkills' group run daily in an adult inpatient general rehabilitation ward. Quantitative administrative data, goal achievement outcome measures, group observations and qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty participants were recruited. Factors for success included consistency in group structure and support, using meaningful practise opportunities and facilitating a real-world experience. There was no significant relationship between patient outcomes and dose of training or patient demographics.

CONCLUSION

This evaluation contributes to a growing body of evidence for incorporating occupation-based approaches into rehabilitation and offers insights into practice implementation.

Evaluating an oral health programme for the prevention of dental decay among school-aged children in China: protocol for a mixed-methods study based on the RE-AIM framework

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the Comprehensive Intervention of Oral Disease for Children (CIODC) in China is to prevent dental decay for school-aged children and provide free prevention services in pilot areas beginning in 2008. It is a potentially affordable, acceptable and effective prevention strategy to use for more school-aged children in the future. There is a shortage of robust evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness, feasibility and scalability of prevention strategies for dental decay for school-aged children in China. This study aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation, including an economic evaluation and process evaluation, to better understand how and why the public health programme may be effective and economical.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Mixed methods will be used in this study. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be conducted from a societal perspective, based on a modelling study over 6 years (from age 7 to 12) in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per dental decay averted. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework informed the process evaluation. An estimated 48-80 semistructured interviews with service providers, patient parents/caregivers and decision-makers under the logic model will be used in the progress evaluation to describe the feasibility and sustainability of CIODC.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has all necessary ethical approvals from the Ethics Committee of Anhui Medical University (number 2021H030). All participants will provide informed consent prior to participation. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Process Evaluation of the SImplification of Medications Prescribed to Long-tErm Care Residents (SIMPLER) Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: A Mixed Methods Study

Complex medication regimens are highly prevalent, burdensome for residents and staff, and associated with poor health outcomes in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). The SIMPLER study was a non-blinded, matched-pair, cluster randomized controlled trial in eight Australian RACFs that investigated the one-off application of a structured 5-step implicit process to simplify medication regimens. The aim of this study was to explore the processes underpinning study implementation and uptake of the medication simplification intervention. A mixed methods process evaluation with an explanatory design was undertaken in parallel with the main outcome evaluation of the SIMPLER study and was guided by an established 8-domain framework. The qualitative component included a document analysis and semi-structured interviews with 25 stakeholders (residents, family, research nurses, pharmacists, RACF staff, and a general medical practitioner). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reflexively thematically content analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative data extracted from key research documents. The SIMPLER recruitment rates at the eight RACFs ranged from 18.9% to 48.6% of eligible residents (38.4% overall). Participation decisions were influenced by altruism, opinions of trusted persons, willingness to change a medication regimen, and third-party hesitation regarding potential resident distress. Intervention delivery was generally consistent with the study protocol. Stakeholders perceived regimen simplification was beneficial and low risk if the simplification recommendations were individualized. Implementation of the simplification recommendations varied between the four intervention RACFs, with simplification implemented at 4-month follow-up for between 25% and 86% of residents for whom simplification was possible. Good working relationships between stakeholders and new remunerated models of medication management were perceived facilitators to wider implementation. In conclusion, the one-off implicit medication simplification intervention was feasible and generally delivered according to the protocol to a representative sample of residents. Despite variable implementation, recommendations to simplify complex regimens were valued by stakeholders, who also supported wider implementation of medication simplification in RACFs.

Developing and implementing an exercise-based group for stroke survivors and their carers: the Carers Count group

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend that carers of stroke survivors should be engaged early in rehabilitation. There has been limited research implementing exercise programs that include carers. The aims of this study were to develop, facilitate, and evaluate an intervention, the Carers Count group, an exercise-based group for stroke survivors and their carers.

METHODS

Over a 5-month period, a staged approach was used to design the intervention and implementation strategies which would maximise the chances of embedding the intervention within an inpatient stroke ward. Implementation strategies included planning, educating, restructuring, financing, and managing quality. Following development and facilitation of the intervention, outcomes were evaluated through collecting data about therapy time, surveys (n = 30) and interviews (n = 18) with participants, and a focus group with staff.

RESULTS

Thirty stroke survivors and their carers participated in the Carers Count group. Analysis of time spent in therapy showed that participation led to increased dose of physiotherapy time (service outcome). Survey and interview data suggested that participation in the group was a rewarding and engaging experience for participants (client outcomes).

CONCLUSION

Using multifaceted strategies, a group designed to include carers was implemented on a stroke rehabilitation ward. The intervention provided positive outcomes in terms of increased therapy dose and satisfaction according to participant feedback.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTR12620000708954Implications for rehabilitationIt is possible to develop modes of delivery in rehabilitation that include the carers of stroke survivors and these interventions are considered enjoyable and beneficial.Health professionals should consider interventions that are engaging and fun for stroke survivors and their carers.Health professionals should carefully plan and utilise appropriate implementation strategies when aiming to introduce a new intervention into an established health service.Health professionals should ensure stroke survivors and their carers have an understanding of recovery following stroke and how to maximise outcomes through increasing amount of practice.

Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) randomised controlled trial: protocol for a multidimensional process evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Primary care interventions are often multicomponent, with several targets (eg, patients and healthcare professionals). Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a novel primary care-based model of long-term stroke care involving a review of stroke-related needs, a self-management programme, a direct point of contact in general practice, enhanced communication between care services, and a directory of national and local community services, currently being evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Informed by Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, this protocol outlines the process evaluation of IPCAS within this RCT. The process evaluation aimed to explore how the intervention was delivered in context and how participants engaged with the intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Mixed methods will be used: (1) design: intervention content will be compared with 'usual care'; (2) training: intervention training sessions will be audio/video-recorded where feasible; (3) delivery: healthcare professional self-reports, audio recordings of intervention delivery and observations of My Life After Stroke course (10% of reviews and sessions) will be coded separately; semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals; (4) receipt and (5) enactment: where available, structured stroke review records will be analysed quantitatively; semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of study participants. Self-reports, observations and audio/video recordings will be coded and scored using specifically developed checklists. Semistructured interviews will be analysed thematically. Data will be analysed iteratively, independent of primary endpoint analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Favourable ethical opinion was gained from Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds NHS Research Ethics Committee (19 December 2017, 17/YH/0441). Study results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03353519; Pre-results.

A randomised controlled trial of hearing and vision support in dementia: Protocol for a process evaluation in the SENSE-Cog trial

BACKGROUND

Optimising hearing and vision function may be important in improving a range of outcomes for people living with dementia (PwD) and their companions. The SENSE-Cog cross-national randomised controlled trial (RCT) is evaluating the effectiveness of a sensory intervention (SI) to improve quality of life for PwD with concurrent hearing and/or vision impairment, in five European countries. To ascertain how or why the intervention will, or will not, achieve its outcomes, we have designed a process evaluation to explore potential discrepancies between expected and observed outcomes. This will also help us to understand how context may influence the outcomes. Here we describe the protocol for this process evaluation, which is embedded within the RCT.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will use a mixed methods approach with a theoretical framework derived from the UK Medical Research Council's' guidance on process evaluations. It will include the following: (1) evaluating how key aspects of the intervention will be delivered, which will be important to scale the intervention in real world populations; (2) characterising the contextual issues, which may shape the delivery and the impact of the intervention in different countries; and (3) investigating possible causal mechanisms through analyses of potential moderators and mediators. To avoid bias, we will analyse the process data before the analysis of the main effectiveness outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This evaluation will provide insight into how the complex SENSE-Cog SI will be tailored, enacted and received across the different European contexts, all of which have unique health and social care economies. The findings will provide insight into the causal mechanisms effecting change, and will determine whether we should implement the intervention, if effective, on a wider scale for PwD and concurrent sensory impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN17056211. Registered on 19 February 2018.

Family-led rehabilitation in India (ATTEND)-Findings from the process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Training family carers to provide evidence-based rehabilitation to stroke patients could address the recognized deficiency of access to stroke rehabilitation in low-resource settings. However, our randomized controlled trial in India (ATTEND) found that this model of care was not superior to usual care alone.

AIMS

This process evaluation aimed to better understand trial outcomes through assessing trial implementation and exploring patients', carers', and providers' perspectives.

METHODS

Our mixed methods study included process, healthcare use data and patient demographics from all sites; observations and semi-structured interviews with participants (22 patients, 22 carers, and 28 health providers) from six sampled sites.

RESULTS

Intervention fidelity and adherence to the trial protocol was high across the 14 sites; however, early supported discharge (an intervention component) was not implemented. Within both randomized groups, some form of rehabilitation was widely accessed. ATTEND stroke coordinators provided counseling and perceived that sustaining patients' motivation to continue with rehabilitation in the face of significant emotional and financial stress as a key challenge. The intervention was perceived as an acceptable community-based package with education as an important component in raising the poor awareness of stroke. Many participants viewed family-led rehabilitation as a necessary model of care for poor and rural populations who could not access rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Difficulty in sustaining patient and carer motivation for rehabilitation without ongoing support, and greater than anticipated access to routine rehabilitation may explain the lack of benefit in the trial. Nonetheless, family-led rehabilitation was seen as a concept worthy of further development.

Protocol for process evaluation of CIVIC randomised controlled trial: Community-based InterVentions to prevent serIous Complications following spinal cord injury in Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

People with spinal cord injuries in low-income and middle-income countries are highly vulnerable to life-threatening complications in the period immediately after discharge from hospital. We are conducting a randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh to determine whether all-cause mortality at 2 years can be reduced if health professionals regularly ring and visit participants in their homes following discharge. We will conduct a process evaluation alongside the trial to explain the trial results and determine the feasibility of scaling this intervention up in low-income and middle-income countries if it is found to be effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our process evaluation is based on the Realist and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance frameworks. We will use a mixed methods approach that uses both qualitative and quantitative data. For example, we will audit a sample of telephone interactions between intervention participants and the healthcare professionals, and we will conduct semistructured interviews with people reflective of various interest groups. Quantitative data will also be collected to determine the number and length of interactions between the healthcare professionals and participants, the types of issues identified during each interaction and the nature of the support and advice provided by the healthcare professionals. All quantitative and qualitative data will be analysed iteratively before the final analysis of the trial results. These data will then be triangulated with the final results of the primary outcome.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee at the site in Bangladesh and from the University of Sydney, Australia. The study will be conducted in compliance with all stipulations of its protocol, the conditions of ethics committee approval and the relevant regulatory bodies. The results of the trial will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615000630516.

Clinical stroke research in resource limited settings: Tips and hints

Background Most stroke research is conducted in high income countries, yet most stroke occurs in low- and middle-income countries. There is an urgent need to build stroke research capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Aims To review the global health literature on how to improve research capacity in low- and middle-income countries, provide additional data from the recently completed ATTEND Trial and provide examples from our own experience. Summary of review The main themes from our literature review were: manpower and workload, research training, research question and methodology and research funding. The literature and our own experience emphasized the importance of local stakeholders to ensure that the research was appropriate, that there were robust local ethics and regulatory processes, and research was conducted by trained personnel. Research training opportunities can be developed locally, or internationally, with many international schemes available to help support new researchers from low- and middle-income country settings. International collaboration can successfully leverage funding from high income countries that not only generate data for the local country, but also provide new data appropriate to high income countries. Conclusions Building stroke research capacity in low- and middle-income countries will be vital in improving global health given the huge burden of stroke in these countries.

Process evaluation of a primary healthcare validation study of a culturally adapted depression screening tool for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Process evaluations are conducted alongside research projects to identify the context, impact and consequences of research, determine whether it was conducted per protocol and to understand how, why and for whom an intervention is effective. We present a process evaluation protocol for the Getting it Right research project, which aims to determine validity of a culturally adapted depression screening tool for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In this process evaluation, we aim to: (1) explore the context, impact and consequences of conducting Getting It Right, (2) explore primary healthcare staff and community representatives' experiences with the research project, (3) determine if it was conducted per protocol and (4) explore experiences with the depression screening tool, including perceptions about how it could be implemented into practice (if found to be valid). We also describe the partnerships established to conduct this process evaluation and how the national Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research is met.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Realist and grounded theory approaches are used. Qualitative data include semistructured interviews with primary healthcare staff and community representatives involved with Getting it Right. Iterative data collection and analysis will inform a coding framework. Interviews will continue until saturation of themes is reached, or all participants are considered. Data will be triangulated against administrative data and patient feedback. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group guides this research. Researchers will be blinded from validation data outcomes for as long as is feasible.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee, Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales and six state ethics committees have approved this research. Findings will be submitted to academic journals and presented at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12614000705684.

Family-led rehabilitation after stroke in India (ATTEND): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most people with stroke in India have no access to organised rehabilitation services. The effectiveness of training family members to provide stroke rehabilitation is uncertain. Our primary objective was to determine whether family-led stroke rehabilitation, initiated in hospital and continued at home, would be superior to usual care in a low-resource setting.

METHODS

The Family-led Rehabilitation after Stroke in India (ATTEND) trial was a prospectively randomised open trial with blinded endpoint done across 14 hospitals in India. Patients aged 18 years or older who had had a stroke within the past month, had residual disability and reasonable expectation of survival, and who had an informal family-nominated caregiver were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care by site coordinators using a secure web-based system with minimisation by site and stroke severity. The family members of participants in the intervention group received additional structured rehabilitation training-including information provision, joint goal setting, carer training, and task-specific training-that was started in hospital and continued at home for up to 2 months. The primary outcome was death or dependency at 6 months, defined by scores 3-6 on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) as assessed by masked observers. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2013/04/003557), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12613000078752), and Universal Trial Number (U1111-1138-6707).

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2014, and Feb 12, 2016, 1250 patients were randomly assigned to intervention (n=623) or control (n=627) groups. 33 patients were lost to follow-up (14 intervention, 19 control) and five patients withdrew (two intervention, three control). At 6 months, 285 (47%) of 607 patients in the intervention group and 287 (47%) of 605 controls were dead or dependent (odds ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·78-1·23, p=0·87). 72 (12%) patients in the intervention group and 86 (14%) in the control group died (p=0·27), and we observed no difference in rehospitalisation (89 [14%]patients in the intervention group vs 82 [13%] in the control group; p=0·56). We also found no difference in total non-fatal events (112 events in 82 [13%] intervention patients vs 110 events in 79 [13%] control patients; p=0·80).

INTERPRETATION

Although task shifting is an attractive solution for health-care sustainability, our results do not support investment in new stroke rehabilitation services that shift tasks to family caregivers, unless new evidence emerges. A future avenue of research should be to investigate the effects of task shifting to health-care assistants or team-based community care.

FUNDING

The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Early supported discharge services for people with acute stroke

BACKGROUND

People with stroke conventionally receive a substantial part of their rehabilitation in hospital. Services have now been developed that offer people in hospital an early discharge with rehabilitation at home (early supported discharge: ESD).

OBJECTIVES

To establish if, in comparison with conventional care, services that offer people in hospital with stroke a policy of early discharge with rehabilitation provided in the community (ESD) can: 1) accelerate return home, 2) provide equivalent or better patient and carer outcomes, 3) be acceptable satisfactory to patients and carers, and 4) have justifiable resource implications use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (January 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched January 2017), MEDLINE in Ovid (searched January 2017), Embase in Ovid (searched January 2017), CINAHL in EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to December 2016), and Web of Science (to January 2017). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched six trial registries (March 2017). We also performed citation tracking of included studies, checked reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke patients in hospital to receive either conventional care or any service intervention that has provided rehabilitation and support in a community setting with an aim of reducing the duration of hospital care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary patient outcome was the composite end-point of death or long-term dependency recorded at the end of scheduled follow-up. Two review authors scrutinised trials, categorised them on their eligibility and extracted data. Where possible we sought standardised data from the primary trialists. We analysed the results for all trials and for subgroups of patients and services, in particular whether the intervention was provided by a co-ordinated multidisciplinary team (co-ordinated ESD team) or not. We assessed risk of bias for the included trials and used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials, recruiting 2422 participants, for which outcome data are currently available. Participants tended to be a selected elderly group of stroke survivors with moderate disability. The ESD group showed reductions in the length of hospital stay equivalent to approximately six days (mean difference (MD) -5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3 to -8 days; P < 0.0001; moderate-grade evidence). The primary outcome was available for 16 trials (2359 participants). Overall, the odds ratios (OR) for the outcome of death or dependency at the end of scheduled follow-up (median 6 months; range 3 to 12) was OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, P = 0.01, moderate-grade evidence) which equates to five fewer adverse outcomes per 100 patients receiving ESD. The results for death (16 trials; 2116 participants) and death or requiring institutional care (12 trials; 1664 participants) were OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, P = 0.81, moderate-grade evidence) and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, P = 0.02, moderate-grade evidence), respectively. Small improvements were also seen in participants' extended activities of daily living scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25, P = 0.01, low-grade evidence) and satisfaction with services (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.38, P = 0.02, low-grade evidence). We saw no clear differences in participants' activities of daily living scores, patients subjective health status or mood, or the subjective health status, mood or satisfaction with services of carers. We found low-quality evidence that the risk of readmission to hospital was similar in the ESD and conventional care group (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.51, P = 0.59, low-grade evidence). The evidence for the apparent benefits were weaker at one- and five-year follow-up. Estimated costs from six individual trials ranged from 23% lower to 15% greater for the ESD group in comparison to usual care.In a series of pre-planned analyses, the greatest reductions in death or dependency were seen in the trials evaluating a co-ordinated ESD team with a suggestion of poorer results in those services without a co-ordinated team (subgroup interaction at P = 0.06). Stroke patients with mild to moderate disability at baseline showed greater reductions in death or dependency than those with more severe stroke (subgroup interaction at P = 0.04).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Appropriately resourced ESD services with co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input provided for a selected group of stroke patients can reduce long-term dependency and admission to institutional care as well as reducing the length of hospital stay. Results are inconclusive for services without co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input. We observed no adverse impact on the mood or subjective health status of patients or carers, nor on readmission to hospital.