Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29302612›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2017

An application of Extended Normalisation Process Theory in a randomised controlled trial of a complex social intervention: Process evaluation of the Strengthening Families Programme (10-14) in Wales, UK.

Jeremy Segrott, Simon Murphy, Heather Rothwell, Jonathan Scourfield, David Foxcroft, David Gillespie, Jo Holliday, Kerenza Hood, Claire Hurlow, Sarah Morgan-Trimmer and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Social Validity of the Strengthening Families Program in Northeastern Brazil: the Voices of Parents, Adolescents, and Facilitators.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2021
    Article
  12. Beyond effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Program (10-14): a scoping RE-AIM-based review.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Needs assessment for cultural adaptation of Strengthening Families Program (SFP 10-14-UK) in Brazil.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2018
    Article
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

14 authors.

Jeremy SegrottCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
Simon MurphyCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
Heather RothwellCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
Jonathan ScourfieldCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
David FoxcroftFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Marston Campus, Oxford OX3 0FL, United Kingdom.
David GillespieSouth East Wales Trials Unit, Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS, United Kingdom.
Jo HollidayCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
Kerenza HoodSouth East Wales Trials Unit, Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS, United Kingdom.
Claire HurlowCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
Sarah Morgan-TrimmerCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
Ceri PhillipsSwansea Centre for Health Economics, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, United Kingdom.
Hayley ReedCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, United Kingdom.
Zoe RobertsCentre for Medical Education, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, United Kingdom.
Laurence MooreMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Top floor, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow G2 3QB, United Kingdom.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU11Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Medical Research Council G0802128Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProcess evaluations generate important data on the extent to which interventions are delivered as intended. However, the tendency to focus only on assessment of pre-specified structural aspects of fidelity has been criticised for paying insufficient attention to implementation processes and how intervention-context interactions influence programme delivery. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation nested within a randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 (SFP 10-14) in Wales, UK. It uses Extended Normalisation Process Theory to theorise how interaction between SFP 10-14 and local delivery systems - particularly practitioner commitment/capability and organisational capacity - influenced delivery of intended programme activities: fidelity (adherence to SFP 10-14 content and implementation requirements); dose delivered; dose received (participant engagement); participant recruitment and reach (intervention attendance).

methodsA mixed methods design was utilised. Fidelity assessment sheets (completed by practitioners), structured observation by researchers, and routine data were used to assess: adherence to programme content; staffing numbers and consistency; recruitment/retention; and group size and composition. Interviews with practitioners explored implementation processes and context.

resultsAdherence to programme content was high - with some variation, linked to practitioner commitment to, and understanding of, the intervention's content and mechanisms. Variation in adherence rates was associated with the extent to which multi-agency delivery team planning meetings were held. Recruitment challenges meant that targets for group size/composition were not always met, but did not affect adherence levels or family engagement. Targets for staffing numbers and consistency were achieved, though capacity within multi-agency networks reduced over time.

conclusionsExtended Normalisation Process Theory provided a useful framework for assessing implementation and explaining variation by examining intervention-context interactions. Findings highlight the need for process evaluations to consider both the structural and process components of implementation to explain whether programme activities are delivered as intended and why.

Indexed as

Extended Normalisation Process TheoryFamily-based preventionFidelityImplementationProcess evaluationRandomised controlled trialStrengthening Families Programme 10–14United Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID29302612
PMCPMC5742638

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.