Does Interpersonal Psychotherapy improve clinical care for adolescents with depression attending a rural child and adolescent mental health service? Study protocol for a cluster randomised feasibility trial

Background: Depression amongst adolescents is a costly societal problem. Little research documents the effectiveness of public mental health services in mapping this problem. Further, it is not clear whether usual care in such services can be improved via clinician training in a relevant evidence based intervention. One such intervention, found to be effective and easily learned amongst novice clinicians, is Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT). The study described in the current paper has two main objectives. First, it aims to investigate the impact on clinical care of implementing Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Adolescents for the treatment of adolescent depression within a rural mental health service compared with Treatment as Usual (TAU). The second objective is to record the process and challenges (i.e. feasibility, acceptability, sustainability) associated with implementing and evaluating an evidence-based intervention within a community service. This paper outlines the study rationale and design for this community based research trial.Methods/design: The study involves a cluster randomisation trial to be conducted within a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service in rural Australia. All clinicians in the service will be invited to participate.&nbsp; Participating clinicians will be randomised via block design at each of four sites to (a) training and delivery of IPT, or (b) TAU. The primary measure of impact on care will be a clinically significant change in depressive&nbsp; symptomatology, with secondary outcomes involving treatment satisfaction and changes in other symptomatology. Participating adolescents with significant depressive symptomatology, aged 12 to 18 years, will complete assessment measures at Weeks 0, 12 and 24 of treatment. They will also complete a depression inventory once a month during that period. This study aims to recruit 60 adolescent participants and their parent/guardian/s. A power analysis is not indicated as an intra-class correlation coefficient will be calculated and used to inform sample size calculations for subsequent large-scale trials. Qualitative data regarding process implementation will be collected quarterly from focus groups with participating clinicians over 18 months, plus phone interviews with participating adolescents and parent/guardians at 12 weeks and 24 weeks of treatment. The focus group qualitative data will be analysed using a Fourth Generation Evaluation methodology that includes a constant comparative cyclic analysis method.Discussion: This study protocol will be informative for researchers and clinicians interested in considering, designing and/or conducting cluster randomised trials within community practice such as mental health services.<br /

Using the theory of planned behaviour as a process evaluation tool in randomised trials of knowledge translation strategies : A case study from UK primary care

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation

Objectives: A patient safety intervention was tested in a 33-ward randomised controlled trial. No statistically significant difference between intervention and control wards was found. We conducted a process evaluation of the trial and our aim in this paper is to understand staff engagement across the 17 intervention wards. Design: Large qualitative process evaluation of the implementation of a patient safety intervention. Setting and participants: National Health Service staff based on 17 acute hospital wards located at five hospital sites in the North of England. Data: We concentrate on three sources here: (1) analysis of taped discussion between ward staff during action planning meetings; (2) facilitators’ field notes and (3) follow-up telephone interviews with staff focusing on whether action plans had been achieved. The analysis involved the use of pen portraits and adaptive theory. Findings: First, there were palpable differences in the ways that the 17 ward teams engaged with the key components of the intervention. Five main engagement typologies were evident across the life course of the study: consistent, partial, increasing, decreasing and disengaged. Second, the intensity of support for the intervention at the level of the organisation does not predict the strength of engagement at the level of the individual ward team. Third, the standardisation of facilitative processes provided by the research team does not ensure that implementation standardisation of the intervention occurs by ward staff. Conclusions: A dilution of the intervention occurred during the trial because wards engaged with Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) in divergent ways, despite the standardisation of key components. Facilitative processes were not sufficiently adequate to enable intervention wards to successfully engage with PRASE components

Protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve management of multimorbidity in general practice:the 3D study

Introduction: As an increasing number of people are living with more than 1 long-term condition, identifying effective interventions for the management of multimorbidity in primary care has become a matter of urgency. Interventions are challenging to evaluate due to intervention complexity and the need for adaptability to different contexts. A process evaluation can provide extra information necessary for interpreting trial results and making decisions about whether the intervention is likely to be successful in a wider context. The 3D (dimensions of health, drugs and depression) study will recruit 32 UK general practices to a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness of a patient-centred intervention. Practices will be randomised to intervention or usual care. Methods and analysis: The aim of the process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention was effective or ineffective and the effect of context. As part of the intervention, quantitative data will be collected to provide implementation feedback to all intervention practices and will contribute to evaluation of implementation fidelity, alongside case study data. Data will be collected at the beginning and end of the trial to characterise each practice and how it provides care to patients with multimorbidity. Mixed methods will be used to collect qualitative data from 4 case study practices, purposively sampled from among intervention practices. Qualitative data will be analysed using techniques of constant comparison to develop codes integrated within a flexible framework of themes. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated to describe case study sites and develop possible explanations for implementation variation. Analysis will take place prior to knowing trial outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: Study approved by South West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via a final report, peer-reviewed publications and practical guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers

Looking inside the black box: results of a theory-based process evaluation exploring the results of a randomized controlled trial of printed educational messages to increase primary care physicians' diabetic retinopathy referrals [Trial registration number ISRCTN72772651]

Background: Theory-based process evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials provide the opportunity to investigate hypothesized mechanisms of action of interventions, helping to build a cumulative knowledge base and to inform the interpretation of individual trial outcomes. Our objective was to identify the underlying causal mechanisms in a cluster randomized trial of the effectiveness of printed educational materials (PEMs) to increase referral for diabetic retinopathy screening. We hypothesized that the PEMs would increase physicians’ intention to refer patients for retinal screening by strengthening their attitude and subjective norm, but not their perceived behavioral control. Methods: Design: A theory based process evaluation alongside the Ontario Printed Educational Material (OPEM) cluster randomized trial. Postal surveys based on the Theory of Planned Behavior were sent to a random sample of trial participants two months before and six months after they received the intervention. Setting: Family physicians in Ontario, Canada. Participants: 1,512 family physicians (252 per intervention group) from the OPEM trial were invited to participate, and 31.3% (473/1512) responded at time one and time two. The final sample comprised 437 family physicians fully completing questionnaires at both time points. Main outcome measures: Primary: behavioral intention related to referring patient for retinopathy screening; secondary: attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control. Results: At baseline, family physicians reported positive intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control to advise patients about retinopathy screening suggesting limited opportunities for improvement in these constructs. There were no significant differences on intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control following the intervention. Respondents also reported additional physician- and patient-related factors perceived to influence whether patients received retinopathy screening. Conclusions: Lack of change in the primary and secondary theory-based outcomes provides an explanation for the lack of observed effect of the main OPEM trial. High baseline levels of intention to advise patients to attend retinopathy screening suggest that post-intentional and other factors may explain gaps in care. Process evaluations based on behavioral theory can provide replicable and generalizable insights to aid interpretation of randomized controlled trials of complex interventions to change health professional behavior