What’s in it for me? A process evaluation of the implementation of a mobile phone-supported intervention after stroke in Uganda

Abstract

Background The prevalence of stroke in Uganda is increasing. In stroke rehabilitation, information and communication technology has been shown to have potential in improving service delivery in high-income countries but there is limited knowledge of its use and impact in low-income countries. The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation process of a mobile phone-supported family-centred rehabilitation intervention and to gain knowledge on the mechanisms of impact as well as the contextual factors that might have affected the implementation process and its outcome. Method This was a single-case study design using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and the Medical Research Council guidance as frameworks . Quantitative process data was derived from 14 log books used by occupational therapists during the implementation. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 implementers in different professions, 12 months into the implementation, in order to obtain the primary data. Secondary data was derived from six semi-structured interviews conducted directly after pre-intervention workshops and 6 months later. The framework method was used in the data analysis. Results In 11 out of 14 cases, the clients were compliant with the intervention. Yet, challenges such as technical problems were reported. The target of conducting 16 phone calls for each client was achieved to 74%. Eight categories emerged from the qualitative analysis of the interviews including: 1) perceptions on facilitation, 2) using scientific and experience-based knowledge, 3) tailoring the intervention, 4) supportive working culture, 5) barriers to the service delivery, 6) implementers’ interaction with the intervention, 7) perceptions on motivations and values, and 8) improving the model and enabling sustainability. Mechanisms contributing to the implementation of the intervention included engaged facilitators and motivated participants. Challenges in the client recruitment and poor information dissemination were some of the mechanisms impeding the implementation. Conclusions The intervention was partially delivered in accordance with the logic model for the project, where the implementation process was influenced by several barriers in the context such as technical setbacks. However, there were also several mediators in the process driving the project forward, including strong facilitation and motivated participants. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6849-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Understanding the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care: a qualitative study of knowledge mobilisation using the i-PARIHS framework

“…We identified how public contributors and lay communities are not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also have potential to be powerful facilitators of implementation, thus illustrating the overlap between the recipient and facilitation constructs of i-PARIHS. Similarly, authors of a process evaluation of the implementation of a mobile phone supported intervention after stroke [ 57 ] suggested that the word recipient may emphasise a slightly more passive role for those involved in the implementation process and renamed the recipient construct of i-PARIHS to ‘implementers’.…”

A ‘new normal’ following COVID-19 and the economic crisis: Using systems thinking to identify challenges and opportunities in disability, telework, and rehabilitation

“…Evidence on the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness is available for many health conditions [61][62][63][64]. The use of telehealth provides increased access, equity, and outreach for rehabilitation services, including for people in rural or remote communities of either high-or low-income nations [65][66][67][68][69][70]. This new increase in demand creates an unprecedented opportunity to scale up the practitioners' habits and capabilities for the use of this service delivery form, as well as scale up the system's capacity (e.g.…”

Implementation Strategies and Outcomes for Occupational Therapy in Adult Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

“…The remaining nine studies only identi ed barriers & facilitators. The second most utilized discrete strategy was [16] Conduct educational outreach visits implemented by ten studies (36,39,41,43,45,46,(48)(49)(50)(51). Other frequently used discrete strategies include [19] Conduct ongoing training, [5] Audit & provide feedback, and [29] Develop educational materials, each of which was implemented in eight of the studies.…”

“…The studies also frequently utilized discrete implementation strategies from the following two clusters: use evaluative and iterative strategies and develop stakeholder interrelationships. Seventeen studies implemented strategies in the evaluative and interactive strategies cluster (40,42,(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59), with [4] Assess for readiness & identify barriers & facilitators being implemented the most within this cluster. Discrete strategies from the develop stakeholder relationships cluster were used in 12 studies (37,39,40,43,44,46,49,50,52,56,60,61), with [35] Identify & prepare champions being implemented the most with 7 studies (39,43,44,46,49,56,61).…”