Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38011165›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Process evaluation of the Invictus Pathways Program.

Dannielle Post, Amy Baker, Steven Milanese, Suzana Freegard, Gaynor Parfitt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dannielle PostAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8246-0363
Amy BakerAllied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Steven MilaneseInternational Centre for Allied Health Evidence (ICAHE), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6470-3296
Suzana FreegardAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2609-7253
Gaynor ParfittAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
University of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUniSA's Invictus Pathways Program (IPP), a service program, was originally developed to assist veterans to train for and participate in the Invictus Games. More recently, the scope of the IPP has widened to support and improve wellbeing and facilitate post traumatic growth and recovery among participants who are living with physical and mental health injuries and conditions. This paper describes the components of the IPP and reports its process evaluation.

methodsUnderpinned by a pragmatic approach, data related to participant and student involvement in the IPP, the number of participant training sessions, session attendance, program activities and events, and program fidelity were compiled from process documentation that had been collected between 2017 and 2020, inclusive. Following ethics approval, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the IPP, members of their family support network, and university staff to understand the operations of the IPP and satisfaction with the program.

findingsThere was high fidelity for the student-led exercise training aspects of IPP; however, data collection relevant to participants' psychological outcomes, and non-training IPP events and activities did not always occur as intended. Between 2017 and 2020, 53 veterans had participated in or were still participating in the IPP, and 63 allied health students had completed placements as student trainers. Fifty-three individual training sessions were delivered in 2017, increasing to 1,024 in 2020. Seventy-one interviews were completed with key IPP stakeholders. The qualitative analysis identified four higher order themes: Implementation and fidelity of the IPP, Satisfaction with the IPP, Areas of the IPP requiring improvement and suggestions for change, and Sustainability of the IPP. Satisfaction was generally high for the IPP, although there were factors that negatively impacted the experience for some participants and their family support network. Suggestions for improvement to program components and delivery aspects were made during the interviews, and the precariousness of IPP funding and sustainability was raised as an ongoing concern.

conclusionThis process evaluation has demonstrated that the physical activity training components of the IPP were delivered with high levels of fidelity, and that satisfaction with the IPP is mostly high, although there are areas that could be improved. There is a need for a more structured approach to the ongoing evaluation of the IPP. This includes ensuring that program staff have a shared understanding of the purpose of evaluation activities and that these activities occur as intended. Beyond this is the need to secure funding to support the sustainability of the IPP, so that it can continue to contribute to the wellbeing of veterans living with physical and mental health conditions, and their families.

Indexed as

Allied Health PersonnelStudentsHumansPersonal SatisfactionProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID38011165
PMCPMC10681190
OpenAlexW4389043008

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.