title: Implementing a training intervention to support caregivers after stroke: a process evaluation examining the initiation and embedding of programme change.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance identifies implementation as a key element of the development and evaluation process for complex healthcare interventions. Implementation is itself a complex process involving the mobilization of human, material, and organizational resources to change practice within settings that have pre-existing structures, historical patterns of relationships, and routinized ways of working. Process evaluations enable researchers and clinicians to understand how implementation proceeds and what factors impact on intended program change. A qualitative process evaluation of the pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial; Training Caregivers after Stroke was conducted to examine how professionals were engaged in the work of delivering training; how they reached and involved caregivers for whom the intervention was most appropriate; how did those on whom training was targeted experience and respond to it. Normalization Process Theory, which focuses attention on implementing and embedding program change, was used as a sensitizing framework to examine selected findings.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Contextual factors including organizational history and team relationships, external policy, and service development initiatives, impinged on implementation of the caregiver training program in unintended ways that could not have been predicted through focus on mechanisms of individual and collective action at unit level. Factors that facilitated or impeded the effectiveness of the cascade training model used, whether and how stroke unit teams made sense of and engaged individually and collectively with a complex caregiver training intervention, and what impact these factors had on embedding the intervention in routine stroke unit practice were identified.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Where implementation of complex interventions depends on multiple providers, time needs to be invested in reaching agreement on who will take responsibility for delivery of specific components and in determining how implementation and its effectiveness will be monitored. This goes beyond concern with intervention fidelity; explicit consideration also needs to be given to the implementation process in terms of how program change can be effected at organizational, practice, and service delivery levels. Normalization Process Theory's constructs help identify vulnerable features of implementation processes in respect of the work involved in embedding complex interventions.
authors: Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Temple Bank House, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK. d.j.clarke@leeds.ac.uk.
authors: David James
authors: DJ
authors: Clarke
authors: Mary
authors: M
authors: Godfrey
authors: Rebecca
authors: R
authors: Hawkins
authors: Euan
authors: E
authors: Sadler
authors: Geoffrey
authors: G
authors: Harding
authors: Anne
authors: A
authors: Forster
authors: Christopher
authors: C
authors: McKevitt
authors: Josie
authors: J
authors: Dickerson
authors: Amanda
authors: A
authors: Farrin
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D017028:Caregivers / Q000193:education*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007318:Inservice Training / Q000458:organization & administration*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017146:Models, Organizational; D016730:Program Development; D012944:Social Support; D000071939:Stroke Rehabilitation; D013663:Teaching
references: J Adv Nurs. 2009 Sep;65(9):1872-81
references: 19694850
references: Lancet. 2011 Nov 12;378(9804):1699-706
references: 21996470
references: Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(2):61-72
references: 19152154
references: BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6
references: 16484270
references: Clin Rehabil. 2007 Oct;21(10):867-84
references: 17981846
references: Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Mar;70(3):305-14
references: 18155388
references: BMJ. 2007 Mar 3;334(7591):455-9
references: 17332585
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD001919
references: 18425877
references: BMC Med. 2010 Oct 20;8:63
references: 20961442
references: BMJ. 2008 Jun 7;336(7656):1281-3
references: 18535071
references: Lancet. 2013 Dec 21;382(9910):2069-76
references: 24054816
references: Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(4):314-22
references: 18210323
references: J Clin Nurs. 2002 Jan;11(1):22-31
references: 11845752
references: J Clin Nurs. 2000 Jul;9(4):498-506
references: 11261129
references: Soc Sci Med. 2008 Nov;67(10):1530-40
references: 18760519
references: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004 Sep;58(9):788-93
references: 15310806
references: BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 May;20(5):453-9
references: 21317181
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Dec;11(4):345-51
references: 12468695
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):7-12
references: 15691997
references: J Interprof Care. 2010 May;24(3):285-97
references: 19995268
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):6
references: 15691996
references: Br J Community Nurs. 2002 Jun;7(6):292-8
references: 12066062
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Apr;17(2):127-30
references: 18385407
references: Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(5):769-78
references: 20005617
references: Milbank Q. 2010 Dec;88(4):500-59
references: 21166868
references: Milbank Q. 2011 Jun;89(2):167-205
references: 21676020
references: Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629
references: 15595944
references: BMJ. 2004 May 8;328(7448):1099
references: 15130977
references: Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Aug;46(8):1122-33
references: 19329118
references: Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-30
references: 14568747
references: Health Technol Assess. 2004 Feb;8(6):iii-iv, 1-72
references: 14960256
references: BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
references: 10987780