학술논문
Learning from a successful process evaluation in care homes.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Allen F; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.; Darby J; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.; Cook M; University of Derby, Derby, UK.; Evley R; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.; Godfrey M; Patient & Public Involvement Representative, Nottingham, UK.; Horne J; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.; Leighton P; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.; Logan P; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.; Nottingham City Care Partnership, Nottingham, UK.; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, Nottingham, UK.; NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, UK.; Robinson K; University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.; Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK.
Source
Publisher: Oxford University Press Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0375655 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1468-2834 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00020729 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Age Ageing Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Introduction: process evaluations (PE) are increasingly used in parallel with randomised controlled trials (RCT) to inform the implementation of complex health interventions. This paper explores the learning accrued from conducting a PE within the Falls in Care Homes Study (FinCH), a large UK RCT.
Methods: in the FinCH study, six purposively sampled care homes provided data for the PE, which followed a realist approach. In this study researchers kept written diaries of their experiences in completing the interviews, focus groups and observations. We have reflected on these and present the main themes for discussion.
Findings: care home staff were enthusiastic to participate in the PE but researchers found it difficult to collect data due to staff not having time to take part, environmental factors such as no space for focus groups and low levels of research understanding. Researchers found that the expectations of the PE protocol were often unrealistic due to these limitations. Flexible and pragmatic approaches such as interviews in place of focus groups enabled data collection but required a reduced sample size and length of data collection to be accepted by researchers.
Conclusion: to enable care home staff to participate in successful PEs, researchers should build flexibility into research schedules, spend time building trust, collaborate with all levels of care home staff prior to data collection, increase research capacity in care home staff and co-design research projects.
(© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)
Methods: in the FinCH study, six purposively sampled care homes provided data for the PE, which followed a realist approach. In this study researchers kept written diaries of their experiences in completing the interviews, focus groups and observations. We have reflected on these and present the main themes for discussion.
Findings: care home staff were enthusiastic to participate in the PE but researchers found it difficult to collect data due to staff not having time to take part, environmental factors such as no space for focus groups and low levels of research understanding. Researchers found that the expectations of the PE protocol were often unrealistic due to these limitations. Flexible and pragmatic approaches such as interviews in place of focus groups enabled data collection but required a reduced sample size and length of data collection to be accepted by researchers.
Conclusion: to enable care home staff to participate in successful PEs, researchers should build flexibility into research schedules, spend time building trust, collaborate with all levels of care home staff prior to data collection, increase research capacity in care home staff and co-design research projects.
(© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)