Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39160641›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2024

Promoting the implementation of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention: development and feasibility testing of an implementation intervention.

Denise A Peels, Janet M Boekhout, Femke van Nassau, Lilian Lechner, Catherine A W Bolman, Brenda A J Berendsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Denise A PeelsDepartment of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, P.O. Box 2960, Heerlen, 6401 DL, The Netherlands. Denise.peels@ou.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0165-4677
Janet M BoekhoutDepartment of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, P.O. Box 2960, Heerlen, 6401 DL, The Netherlands.
Femke van NassauDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lilian LechnerDepartment of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, P.O. Box 2960, Heerlen, 6401 DL, The Netherlands.
Catherine A W BolmanDepartment of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, P.O. Box 2960, Heerlen, 6401 DL, The Netherlands.
Brenda A J BerendsenDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 616, Maastricht, 6200 MD, The Netherlands.

Funding

Fonds NutsOhra 102.509
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough there are many proven effective physical activity (PA) interventions for older adults, implementation in a real world setting is often limited. This study describes the systematic development of a multifaceted implementation intervention targeting the implementation of an evidence-based computer-tailored PA intervention and evaluates its use and feasibility.

methodsThe implementation intervention was developed following the Intervention Mapping (IM) protocol, supplemented with insights from implementation science literature. The implementation intervention targets the municipal healthcare policy advisors, as an important implementation stakeholder in Dutch healthcare system. The feasibility of the implementation intervention was studied among these stakeholders using a pretest-posttest design within 8 municipal healthcare settings. Quantitative questionnaires were used to assess task performance (i.e. achievement of performance objectives), and utilization of implementation strategies (as part of the intervention). Furthermore, changes in implementation determinants were studied by gathering quantitative data before, during and after applying the implementation intervention within a one-year period. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders assessed their considerations regarding the feasibility of the implementation intervention.

resultsA multi-faceted implementation intervention was developed in which implementation strategies (e.g. funding, educational materials, meetings, building a coalition) were selected to target the most relevant identified implementation determinants. Most implementation strategies were used as intended. Execution of performance objectives for adoption and implementation was relatively high (75-100%). Maintenance objectives were executed to a lesser degree (13-63%). No positive changes in implementation determinants were found. None of the stakeholders decided to continue implementation of the PA intervention further, mainly due to the unforeseen amount of labour and the disappointing reach of end-users.

conclusionThe current study highlights the importance of a thorough feasibility study in addition to the use of IM. Although feasibility results may have demonstrated that stakeholders broadly accepted the implementation intervention, implementation determinants did not change favorably, and stakeholders had no plans to continue the PA intervention. Yet, choices made during the development of the implementation intervention (i.e. the operationalization of Implementation Mapping) might not have been optimal. The current study describes important lessons learned when developing an implementation intervention, and provides recommendations for developers of future implementation interventions.

Indexed as

Computer-tailored interventionEhealthIntermediary characteristicsIntervention characteristicsIntervention implementationOrganisational characteristicsPhysical activityPreventionSocio-political characteristics

Identifiers

PMID39160641
PMCPMC11331651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.