Peer-support to increase uptake of screening for diabetic retinopathy: process evaluation of the DURE cluster randomized trial.

Autor: Mwangi N; 1London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.; 2Kenya Medical Training College, Nairobi, Kenya., Bascaran C; 1London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England., Ramke J; 1London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.; 3University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand., Kipturgo M; 2Kenya Medical Training College, Nairobi, Kenya., Kim M; 1London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England., Ng'ang'a M; Kerugoya County Referral Hospital, Kerugoya, Kenya., Gichuhi S; 5University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya., Mutie D; 2Kenya Medical Training College, Nairobi, Kenya., Moorman C; 6Oxford University NHS Trust, Oxford, UK., Muthami L; 7Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya., Foster A; 1London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Tropical medicine and health [Trop Med Health] 2020 Jan 06; Vol. 48, pp. 1. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jan 06 (Print Publication: 2020).
DOI: 10.1186/s41182-019-0188-z
Abstrakt: Background: There is limited evidence on how implementation of peer support interventions influences effectiveness, particularly for individuals with diabetes. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of a peer-led health education package versus usual care to increase uptake of screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR).
Methods: Our process evaluation used a mixed-method design to investigate the recruitment and retention, reach, dose, fidelity, acceptability, and context of implementation, and was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We reviewed trial documents, conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants ( n = 10) and conducted four focus group discussions with participants in both arms of the trial. Three analysts undertook CFIR theory-driven content analysis of the qualitative data. Quantitative data was analyzed to provide descriptive statistics relevant to the objectives of the process evaluation.
Results: The trial had positive implementation outcomes, 100% retention of clusters and 96% retention for participants, 83% adherence to delivery of content of group talks (fidelity), and 78% attendance (reach) to at least 50% (3/6) of the group talks (dose). The data revealed that intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics, and process (all the constructs of CFIR) influenced the implementation. There were more facilitators than barriers to the implementation. Facilitators included the relative advantage of the intervention compared with current practice (intervention characteristics); awareness of the growing prioritization of diabetes in the national health policy framework (outer setting); tension for change due to the realization of the vulnerability to vision loss from DR (inner setting); a strong collective sense of accountability of peer supporters to implement the intervention (individual characteristics); and regular feedback on the progress with implementation (process). Potential barriers included the need to queue at the eye clinic (intervention characteristic), travel inconveniences (inner setting), and socio-political disruption (outer setting).
Conclusions: The intervention was implemented with high retention, reach, fidelity, and dose. The CFIR provided a valuable framework for evaluating contextual factors that influenced implementation and helped to understand what adaptations may be needed during scale up.
Trial Registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR201707002430195 registered 15 July 2017.
Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
(© The Author(s) 2020.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje