BackgroundThis process evaluation article describes the lessons learned from a failed trial which aimed to assess effectiveness of the tailor-made, multidisciplinary Social Fitness Programme to improve social participation of community-dwelling older people with cognitive problems (clients) and their caregivers (couples).MethodsA process evaluation was performed to get insight in 1) the implementation of the intervention, 2) the context of intervention delivery from professionals’ point of view, and 3) the potential impact of intervention delivery from participants’ perspectives. Data was gathered using mixed-methods: questionnaires, focus group discussions, interviews, medical records.Results1) Implementation. High study decline (65,3%) was mainly caused by a lack of internal motivation to increase social participation expressed by clients. 17 couples participated, however, intervention delivery was insufficient. 2) Context. Barriers during intervention delivery were most often related to client (changing needs), caregiver (increased burden) and health professional factors (delivery of integrated care lacked routine). 3) Impact Qualitative analyses revealed participants to be satisfied with intervention delivery, we were unable to capture these results through our primary outcome measure.ConclusionsThis process evaluation revealed the Social Fitness study did not fit in three ways. First, framing the intervention on social participation promotion was as threatening to clients. The feeling of being unable to adequately contribute to social interactions seemed to be causing embarrassment. Second, the intervention seemed to be too complex to implement in the way it was designed. Third, there is a tension between the offering of a personalised tailor-made intervention and evaluation through a fixed study design.Trial registrationThe trial which is evaluated in this article (the Social Fitness study) is registered with the Dutch Trial Register (NTR), clinical trial number NTR4347.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0927-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Stroke has a major impact on survivors and their social environment. Care delivery is advocated to become more client-centered and home-based because of their positive impact on client outcomes. The objective of this study was to explore professionals’ perspectives on the provision of Home-Based Stroke Rehabilitation (HBSR) in the Netherlands and on the barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of HBSR in daily practice. Methods Semi-structured focus groups were conducted to explore the perspectives of health and social care professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation. Directed content analysis was performed to analyze the transcripts of recorded conversations. Results Fourteen professionals participated in focus groups (n = 12) or, if unable to attend, an interview (n = 2). Participants varied in professional backgrounds and roles in treating Dutch clients post stroke. Barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of HBSR in daily practice were identified in relation to: the innovation, the user, the organization and the socio-political context. Participants reported that HBSR can be efficient and effective to most clients because it facilitates client- and caregiver-centered rehabilitation within the clients’ own environment. However, barriers in implementing HBSR were perceived in a lack of (structured) inter-professional collaboration and the transparency of expertise of primary care professionals. Also, the current financial structures for HBSR in the Netherlands are viewed as inappropriate. Discussion In line with previous studies, we found that HBSR is recognized by professionals as a promising alternative to institution-based rehabilitation for clients with sufficient capabilities (e.g. their own health and informal support). Conclusion Multiple factors influencing the implementation of HBSR were identified. Our study suggests that, in order to implement HBSR in daily practice, region specific implementation strategies need to be developed. We recommend developing strategies concerning: organized and coordinated inter-professional collaboration, transparency of the expertise of primary care professionals, and the financial structures of HBSR.

Although this intervention builds upon scientific evidence, expert opinions and stakeholder needs, implementation was challenging. Healthcare and welfare professionals need to overcome obstacles in their collaboration and focus on integrated intervention delivery. Also, they need to find ways to (empower caregivers to) motivate people with cognitive problems to participate socially. After modifying the intervention and additional training of professionals, a consecutive pilot study to assess feasibility of the research design and outcome measures is justified. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The aim of this study is to explore how community-dwelling older people with cognitive problems and their care-givers (dyads) perceive their own social participation, how care-givers evaluate the social participation of the people they care for and what factors they perceive as influential. In this qualitative study, we performed 13 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with dyads who participated in the Social Fitness Programme. We used content analysis to analyse the interviews thematically. Social participation perceptions include changes over time and a discrepancy in perspectives. All the people with cognitive problems and most care-givers perceived a decreased social participation. Most people with cognitive problems answered that they were satisfied, in contrast to most care-givers who were dissatisfied with the decreased social participation of the people they cared for. Analysing the influencing factors resulted in five themes: behavioural, physical, social environmental, physical environmental and activity-related. People with cognitive problems and their care-givers displayed a discrepancy in social participation perspectives. This becomes a major dilemma, especially for younger care-givers. A key element is a sometimes deliberate choice of people with cognitive problems to refrain from social participation to protect themselves from the consequences of cognitive problems and from encounters with others. This highlights the dynamics of social participation as an interaction between personal factors and the social and physical environment in which social participation occurs.