balancing opposing forces—a nested process evaluation study protocol for a stepped wedge designed cluster randomized controlled trial of an experience based codesign intervention
Clicks: 241
ID: 163602
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
241 views
62 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #1 of 6 articles by views in earth science frontiers
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
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.
| Reference Key |
palmer2016internationalbalancing
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Victoria Jane Palmer;Donella Piper;Lauralie Richard;John Furler;Helen Herrman;Jacqui Cameron;Kali Godbee;David Pierce;Rosemary Callander;Wayne Weavell;Jane Gunn;Rick Iedema |
| Journal | earth science frontiers |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.1177/1609406916672216
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.