Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716247›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Mechanisms of action of an implementation intervention in stroke rehabilitation: a qualitative interview study.

Louise A Connell, Naoimh E McMahon, Sarah F Tyson, Caroline L Watkins, Janice J Eng

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Implementation of Dynamic LycraRehabilitation process and outcome · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Louise A ConnellCollege of Health & Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK. laconnell@uclan.ac.uk.
Naoimh E McMahonCollege of Health & Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Sarah F TysonStroke & Vascular Research Centre, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, Jean McFarlane Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Caroline L WatkinsCollege of Health & Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Janice J EngDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, 212-2177 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
University of Lancashire · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2012-05-201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite best evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of increased intensity of exercise after stroke, current levels of therapy continue to be below those required to optimise motor recovery. We developed and tested an implementation intervention that aims to increase arm exercise in stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to illustrate the use of a behaviour change framework, the Behaviour Change Wheel, to identify the mechanisms of action that explain how the intervention produced change.

methodsWe implemented the intervention at three stroke rehabilitation units in the United Kingdom. A purposive sample of therapy team members were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews to explore their perceptions of how the intervention produced change at their work place. Audio recordings were transcribed and imported into NVivo 10 for content analysis. Two coders separately analysed the transcripts and coded emergent mechanisms. Mechanisms were categorised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) (an extension of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model (COM-B) at the hub of the Behaviour Change Wheel).

resultsWe identified five main mechanisms of action: 'social/professional role and identity', 'intentions', 'reinforcement', 'behavioural regulation' and 'beliefs about consequences'. At the outset, participants viewed the research team as an external influence for whom they endeavoured to complete the study activities. The study design, with a focus on implementation in real world settings, influenced participants' intentions to implement the intervention components. Monthly meetings between the research and therapy teams were central to the intervention and acted as prompt or reminder to sustain implementation. The phased approach to introducing and implementing intervention components influenced participants' beliefs about the feasibility of implementation.

conclusionsThe Behaviour Change Wheel, and in particular the Theoretical Domains Framework, were used to investigate mechanisms of action of an implementation intervention. This approach allowed for consideration of a range of possible mechanisms, and allowed us to categorise these mechanisms using an established behaviour change framework. Identification of the mechanisms of action, following testing of the intervention in a number of settings, has resulted in a refined and more robust intervention programme theory for future testing.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBehavior TherapyExercise TherapyFemaleHospitalizationHospitals, GeneralHumansMaleMotivationPatient SelectionPerceptionProfessional RoleQualitative ResearchReinforcement, PsychologyResearch DesignStroke RehabilitationBehaviour changeImplementationMechanisms of actionQualitative designStroke

Identifiers

PMID27716247
PMCPMC5045623
OpenAlexW2523894155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.