Characterising innovations in maternal and newborn health based on a common theory of change: lessons from developing and applying a characterisation framework in Nigeria, Ethiopia and India.

Government leadership is key to enhancing maternal and newborn survival. In low/middle-income countries, donor support is extensive and multiple actors add complexity. For policymakers and others interested in harmonising diverse maternal and newborn health efforts, a coherent description of project components and their intended outcomes, based on a common theory of change, can be a valuable tool. We outline an approach to developing such a tool to describe the work and the intended effect of a portfolio of nine large-scale maternal and newborn health projects in north-east Nigeria, Ethiopia and Uttar Pradesh in India. Teams from these projects developed a framework, the 'characterisation framework', based on a common theory of change. They used this framework to describe their innovations and their intended outcomes. Individual project characterisations were then collated in each geography, to identify what innovations were implemented where, when and at what scale, as well as the expected health benefit of the joint efforts of all projects. Our study had some limitations. It would have been enhanced by a more detailed description and analysis of context and, by framing our work in terms of discrete innovations, we may have missed some synergistic aspects of the combination of those innovations. Our approach can be valuable for building a programme according to a commonly agreed theory of change, as well as for researchers examining the effectiveness of the combined work of a range of actors. The exercise enables policymakers and funders, both within and between countries, to enhance coordination of efforts and to inform decision-making about what to fund, when and where

Effects of behavioural exercise therapy on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised controlled trial

Background!#!The long-term effects of behavioural medical rehabilitation (BMR), as a type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) have been shown. However, the specific effects of behavioural exercise therapy (BET) compared to standard exercise therapy (SET) within BMR are not well understood. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of BMR + BET compared to BMR + SET in individuals with CLBP in a two-armed, pre-registered, multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT).!##!Methods!#!A total of 351 adults with CLBP in two rehabilitation centres were online randomised based on an 'urn randomisation' algorithm to either BMR + SET (n = 175) or BMR + BET (n = 176). Participants in both study groups were non-blinded and received BMR, consisting of an multidisciplinary admission, a psychosocial assessment, multidisciplinary case management, psychological treatment, health education and social counselling. The intervention group (BMR + BET) received a manualised, biopsychosocial BET within BMR. The aim of BET was to develop self-management strategies in coping with CLBP. The control group (BMR + SET) received biomedical SET within BMR with the aim to improve mainly physical fitness. Therapists in both study groups were not blinded. The BMR lasted on average 27 days, and both exercise programmes had a mean duration of 26 h. The primary outcome was functional ability at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were e.g. pain, avoidance-endurance, pain management and physical activity. The analysis was by intention-to-treat, blinded to the study group, and used a linear mixed model.!##!Results!#!There were no between-group differences observed in function at the end of the BMR (mean difference, 0.08; 95% CI - 2.82 to 2.99; p = 0.955), at 6 months (mean difference, - 1.80; 95% CI; - 5.57 to 1.97; p = 0.349) and at 12 months (mean difference, - 1.33; 95% CI - 5.57 to 2.92; p = 0.540). Both study groups improved in the primary outcome and most secondary outcomes at 12 months with small to medium effect sizes.!##!Conclusion!#!BMR + BET was not more effective in improving function and other secondary outcomes in individuals with CLBP compared to BMR + SET.!##!Trial registration!#!Current controlled trials NCT01666639 , 16/08/2012

Co-creating physical activity interventions: a mixed methods evaluation approach

Background!#!Co-creation strategies, such as cooperative planning, are promising as a means to ensure that physical activity interventions address real-world problems and are tailored to the target group. This has already been validated in diverse settings. However, questions targeting the transferability of cooperative planning to new settings and the key factors influencing its success or failure remain unclear. At the same time, co-creation processes are complex, and evaluation can be challenging. Following calls for detailed reporting, this paper describes the programme activities, the underlying logic, and methodological design of a study that aims to evaluate the transfer of cooperative planning to new settings and to explore the associated key determinants.!##!Methods!#!Cooperative planning was utilized as a strategy to target physical activity promotion in three real-world German settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. This involved researchers working alongside stakeholders from practice and policy to conjointly develop new interventions to promote physical activity in physically demanding jobs. A pragmatic approach is used to evaluate both the transferability and key determinants of this strategy. We developed a logic model for this co-creation process that describes the underlying assumptions and guides the evaluation. The evaluation outcomes of this study include planning meetings, newly developed interventions, and the determinants that are likely to affect cooperative planning. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected using questionnaires, documents, and interviews. The quantitative data will be analysed descriptively, while the qualitative data will mainly be analysed using qualitative content analysis, split by settings. Subsequently, data triangulation will be used to integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings, which will then be compared across all three settings.!##!Discussion!#!The study findings will contribute to a better understanding of co-creation strategies, their transferability, and key determinants. The practical implications can include a checklist for assessing key determinants and a guideline for transferring cooperative planning into new settings to benefit more people. Ultimately, this study will help to advance co-creation strategies and may be relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers targeting physical activity promotion in various contexts.!##!Trial registration!#!Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/r6xnt/ (retrospectively registered)

Long-term effects of interprofessional biopsychosocial rehabilitation for adults with chronic non-specific low back pain: a multicentre, quasi-experimental study

Background Improvement of the long-term effectiveness of multidisciplinary ortho-paedic rehabilitation (MOR) in the management of chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) remains a central issue for health care in Germany. We developed an interprofessional and interdisciplinary, biopsychosocial rehabilitation concept named "PASTOR" to promote self-management in adults with CLBP and compared its effectiveness with the current model of MOR. Methods A multicentre quasi-experimental study with three measurement time points was implemented. 680 adults aged 18 to 65 with CLBP were assed for eligibil-ity in three inpatient rehabilitation centres in Germany. At first the effects of the MOR, with a total extent of 48 hours (control group), were assessed. Thereafter, PASTOR was implemented and evaluated in the same centres (intervention group). It consisted of six interprofessional modules, which were provided on 12 days in fixed groups, with a total extent of 48 hours. Participants were assessed with self-report measures at baseline, discharge, and 12 months for functional ability (primary outcome) using the Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire (FFbH-R) and vari-ous secondary outcomes (e.g. pain, health status, physical activity, pain coping, pain-related cognitions). Results In total 536 participants were consecutively assigned to PASTOR (n=266) or MOR (n=270). At 12 months, complete data of 368 participants was available. The adjusted between-roup difference in the FFbH-R at 12 months was 6.58 (95% CI 3.38 to 9.78) using complete data and 3.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 6.67) using available da-ta, corresponding to significant small-to-medium effect sizes of d=0.42 (p<0.001) and d=0.10 (p=0.025) in favour of PASTOR. Further improvements in secondary out-comes were also observed in favour of PASTOR. Conclusion The interprofessional and interdisciplinary, biopsychosocial rehabilita-tion program PASTOR shows some improvements of the long-term effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation in the management of adults with CLBP. Further insights into mechanisms of action of complex intervention programs are required

Endurance and avoidance response patterns in pain patients: Application of action control theory in pain research.

BackgroundIdentifying pain-related response patterns and understanding functional mechanisms of symptom formation and recovery are important for improving treatment.ObjectivesWe aimed to replicate pain-related avoidance-endurance response patterns associated with the Fear-Avoidance Model, and its extension, the Avoidance-Endurance Model, and examined their differences in secondary measures of stress, action control (i.e., dispositional action vs. state orientation), coping, and health.MethodsLatent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted on self-report data from 536 patients with chronic non-specific low back pain at the beginning of an inpatient rehabilitation program. Measures of stress (i.e., pain, life stress) and action control were analyzed as covariates regarding their influence on the formation of different pain response profiles. Measures of coping and health were examined as dependent variables.ResultsPartially in line with our assumptions, we found three pain response profiles of distress-avoidance, eustress-endurance, and low-endurance responses that are depending on the level of perceived stress and action control. Distress-avoidance responders emerged as the most burdened, dysfunctional patient group concerning measures of stress, action control, maladaptive coping, and health. Eustress-endurance responders showed one of the highest levels of action versus state orientation, as well as the highest levels of adaptive coping and physical activity. Low-endurance responders reported lower levels of stress as well as equal levels of action versus state orientation, maladaptive coping, and health compared to eustress-endurance responders; however, equally low levels of adaptive coping and physical activity compared to distress-avoidance responders.ConclusionsApart from the partially supported assumptions of the Fear-Avoidance and Avoidance-Endurance Model, perceived stress and dispositional action versus state orientation may play a crucial role in the formation of pain-related avoidance-endurance response patterns that vary in degree of adaptiveness. Results suggest tailoring interventions based on behavioral and functional analysis of pain responses in order to more effectively improve patients quality of life

Table_1_Co-creating physical activity interventions: Findings from a multiple case study using mixed methods.docx

IntroductionIn health and physical activity promotion, there is growing interest in co-creation approaches that involve researchers and non-academic stakeholders in developing new interventions. Previous research has shown the promising results of cooperative planning as a co-creation approach in building new capacities and implementing physical activity-promoting interventions in nursing care and automotive mechatronics. However, it remains unclear whether (1) cooperative planning for physical activity promotion can be successfully transferred to other settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronic sectors and (2) what key factors influence its success or failure.MethodsWe conducted a multiple case study in three settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. Following a mixed methods approach, we collected, analyzed, and triangulated data from documents (n = 17), questionnaires (n = 66), and interviews (n = 6). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through using nonparametric analyses of variance; qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis by extraction.ResultsThe transfer of cooperative planning to new settings was realized, though the impact varied by setting. While the interventions were developed and implemented in nursing care settings, interventions were developed but not implemented in the automotive mechatronics setting. In this context, intervention implementation was influenced by 11 key factors: champion, commitment, embedment, empowerment, engagement, health-promoting leadership, ownership, relevance, resources, responsibility, and strategic planning. Furthermore, the transfer of cooperative planning was influenced by different activity characteristics, namely elaboration & reconsideration, group composition, number of meetings, participation, period, prioritization, and researchers' input & support.DiscussionThe present article contributes to a better understanding of a co-creation approach utilized for physical activity promotion and provides new insights into (1) the transferability of cooperative planning and (2) the associated key factors influencing intervention implementation. The success of cooperative planning varied by setting and was influenced by several activity characteristics and key factors, some of which showed complex relationships. This raises the question of whether some settings might benefit more from a co-creation approach than others. Therefore, future co-creation initiatives should carefully consider the specific characteristics of a setting to select and apply the most appropriate approach.</p

Table_2_Co-creating physical activity interventions: Findings from a multiple case study using mixed methods.xlsx

IntroductionIn health and physical activity promotion, there is growing interest in co-creation approaches that involve researchers and non-academic stakeholders in developing new interventions. Previous research has shown the promising results of cooperative planning as a co-creation approach in building new capacities and implementing physical activity-promoting interventions in nursing care and automotive mechatronics. However, it remains unclear whether (1) cooperative planning for physical activity promotion can be successfully transferred to other settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronic sectors and (2) what key factors influence its success or failure.MethodsWe conducted a multiple case study in three settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. Following a mixed methods approach, we collected, analyzed, and triangulated data from documents (n = 17), questionnaires (n = 66), and interviews (n = 6). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through using nonparametric analyses of variance; qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis by extraction.ResultsThe transfer of cooperative planning to new settings was realized, though the impact varied by setting. While the interventions were developed and implemented in nursing care settings, interventions were developed but not implemented in the automotive mechatronics setting. In this context, intervention implementation was influenced by 11 key factors: champion, commitment, embedment, empowerment, engagement, health-promoting leadership, ownership, relevance, resources, responsibility, and strategic planning. Furthermore, the transfer of cooperative planning was influenced by different activity characteristics, namely elaboration & reconsideration, group composition, number of meetings, participation, period, prioritization, and researchers' input & support.DiscussionThe present article contributes to a better understanding of a co-creation approach utilized for physical activity promotion and provides new insights into (1) the transferability of cooperative planning and (2) the associated key factors influencing intervention implementation. The success of cooperative planning varied by setting and was influenced by several activity characteristics and key factors, some of which showed complex relationships. This raises the question of whether some settings might benefit more from a co-creation approach than others. Therefore, future co-creation initiatives should carefully consider the specific characteristics of a setting to select and apply the most appropriate approach.</p

Table_3_Co-creating physical activity interventions: Findings from a multiple case study using mixed methods.docx

IntroductionIn health and physical activity promotion, there is growing interest in co-creation approaches that involve researchers and non-academic stakeholders in developing new interventions. Previous research has shown the promising results of cooperative planning as a co-creation approach in building new capacities and implementing physical activity-promoting interventions in nursing care and automotive mechatronics. However, it remains unclear whether (1) cooperative planning for physical activity promotion can be successfully transferred to other settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronic sectors and (2) what key factors influence its success or failure.MethodsWe conducted a multiple case study in three settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. Following a mixed methods approach, we collected, analyzed, and triangulated data from documents (n = 17), questionnaires (n = 66), and interviews (n = 6). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through using nonparametric analyses of variance; qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis by extraction.ResultsThe transfer of cooperative planning to new settings was realized, though the impact varied by setting. While the interventions were developed and implemented in nursing care settings, interventions were developed but not implemented in the automotive mechatronics setting. In this context, intervention implementation was influenced by 11 key factors: champion, commitment, embedment, empowerment, engagement, health-promoting leadership, ownership, relevance, resources, responsibility, and strategic planning. Furthermore, the transfer of cooperative planning was influenced by different activity characteristics, namely elaboration & reconsideration, group composition, number of meetings, participation, period, prioritization, and researchers' input & support.DiscussionThe present article contributes to a better understanding of a co-creation approach utilized for physical activity promotion and provides new insights into (1) the transferability of cooperative planning and (2) the associated key factors influencing intervention implementation. The success of cooperative planning varied by setting and was influenced by several activity characteristics and key factors, some of which showed complex relationships. This raises the question of whether some settings might benefit more from a co-creation approach than others. Therefore, future co-creation initiatives should carefully consider the specific characteristics of a setting to select and apply the most appropriate approach.</p

Table_4_Co-creating physical activity interventions: Findings from a multiple case study using mixed methods.docx

IntroductionIn health and physical activity promotion, there is growing interest in co-creation approaches that involve researchers and non-academic stakeholders in developing new interventions. Previous research has shown the promising results of cooperative planning as a co-creation approach in building new capacities and implementing physical activity-promoting interventions in nursing care and automotive mechatronics. However, it remains unclear whether (1) cooperative planning for physical activity promotion can be successfully transferred to other settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronic sectors and (2) what key factors influence its success or failure.MethodsWe conducted a multiple case study in three settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. Following a mixed methods approach, we collected, analyzed, and triangulated data from documents (n = 17), questionnaires (n = 66), and interviews (n = 6). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through using nonparametric analyses of variance; qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis by extraction.ResultsThe transfer of cooperative planning to new settings was realized, though the impact varied by setting. While the interventions were developed and implemented in nursing care settings, interventions were developed but not implemented in the automotive mechatronics setting. In this context, intervention implementation was influenced by 11 key factors: champion, commitment, embedment, empowerment, engagement, health-promoting leadership, ownership, relevance, resources, responsibility, and strategic planning. Furthermore, the transfer of cooperative planning was influenced by different activity characteristics, namely elaboration & reconsideration, group composition, number of meetings, participation, period, prioritization, and researchers' input & support.DiscussionThe present article contributes to a better understanding of a co-creation approach utilized for physical activity promotion and provides new insights into (1) the transferability of cooperative planning and (2) the associated key factors influencing intervention implementation. The success of cooperative planning varied by setting and was influenced by several activity characteristics and key factors, some of which showed complex relationships. This raises the question of whether some settings might benefit more from a co-creation approach than others. Therefore, future co-creation initiatives should carefully consider the specific characteristics of a setting to select and apply the most appropriate approach.</p

Table_5_Co-creating physical activity interventions: Findings from a multiple case study using mixed methods.docx

IntroductionIn health and physical activity promotion, there is growing interest in co-creation approaches that involve researchers and non-academic stakeholders in developing new interventions. Previous research has shown the promising results of cooperative planning as a co-creation approach in building new capacities and implementing physical activity-promoting interventions in nursing care and automotive mechatronics. However, it remains unclear whether (1) cooperative planning for physical activity promotion can be successfully transferred to other settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronic sectors and (2) what key factors influence its success or failure.MethodsWe conducted a multiple case study in three settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. Following a mixed methods approach, we collected, analyzed, and triangulated data from documents (n = 17), questionnaires (n = 66), and interviews (n = 6). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through using nonparametric analyses of variance; qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis by extraction.ResultsThe transfer of cooperative planning to new settings was realized, though the impact varied by setting. While the interventions were developed and implemented in nursing care settings, interventions were developed but not implemented in the automotive mechatronics setting. In this context, intervention implementation was influenced by 11 key factors: champion, commitment, embedment, empowerment, engagement, health-promoting leadership, ownership, relevance, resources, responsibility, and strategic planning. Furthermore, the transfer of cooperative planning was influenced by different activity characteristics, namely elaboration & reconsideration, group composition, number of meetings, participation, period, prioritization, and researchers' input & support.DiscussionThe present article contributes to a better understanding of a co-creation approach utilized for physical activity promotion and provides new insights into (1) the transferability of cooperative planning and (2) the associated key factors influencing intervention implementation. The success of cooperative planning varied by setting and was influenced by several activity characteristics and key factors, some of which showed complex relationships. This raises the question of whether some settings might benefit more from a co-creation approach than others. Therefore, future co-creation initiatives should carefully consider the specific characteristics of a setting to select and apply the most appropriate approach.</p