Skip to main content

Table 1 Indicators and Operationalization of Intervention Quality, including Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation

From: Process evaluation of a tailored intervention to Reduce Inappropriate psychotropic Drug use in nursing home residents with dementia

Relevance and Feasibility of RID Intervention
  Stakeholder Indicator Source
   1) Researchers Added value tailored information provision Questionnaire: Likert scale
Experiences with researchers Interviews: description
   2) Internal project leader & MPT Competence A of project leader (perceived by coach) Questionnaire: Likert scale
Experiences with project leaders Interviews: description
Experiences with MPT Interviews: description
   3) External coach Added value of coaching Questionnaire: Likert scale
Coaching necessity for (continued) implementation Questionnaire: Yes/No
Competence A of coach (perceived by project leader) Questionnaire: Likert scale
Experiences with coaching Interviews: description
Extent of Performance of RID Intervention
  Task Indicator Source
   1) Organizing efforts of stakeholders   
    - Researchers Kick-off meeting in nursing home Questionnaire: Yes/No
    - MPT Formation of an MPT Questionnaire: Yes/No
Attendance physicians, psychologists, and nursing staff at MPT meetings B Questionnaire: % attendance B
    - External coach Meetings coach and MPT in nursing home C Questionnaire: # meetings
(Phone) meetings coach and project leader C Questionnaire: # meetings
   2) Problem analysis Researchers carried out problem analysis and presented results to the MPT and coach Questionnaire: Yes/No
   3) Designing tailored AIP AIP created Questionnaire: Yes/No
Contribution coach, project leader, and MPT to designing the AIP Questionnaire: Likert scale
Perceived match between problems and actions Questionnaire: Likert scale
Coach provided feedback on the AIP Questionnaire: Yes/No
Researchers provided feedback on the AIP Questionnaire: Yes/No
Adjustments to AIP based on feedback Questionnaire: Yes/No
   4) Implementation of tailored AIP Start with implementation D Questionnaire: # weeks passed
  Execution actions as intended: E Implementation score Questionnaire: 10-point scale
   5) Monitoring progression Researchers carried out interim measurement and provided the MPT with the results * Questionnaire: Yes/No
   6) Stimulating progression Coach discussed and reflected on interim results with the MPT * Questionnaire: Yes/No
   7) Adjustments to tailored AIP MPT adjusted the AIP based on interim results F * Questionnaire: Yes/No
Interviews: description
   8) Providing final results Researchers carried out final measurement and provided the MPT with the end results Questionnaire: Yes/No
Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation Interviews: data structured with CFIR
  1. Abbreviations: AIP Action and Implementation Plan, CFIR Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, MPT Multidisciplinary Project Team
  2. A Evaluated as: (very) competent on content (PDs, alternatives in managing NPS) and process (motivate, structure)
  3. B Since these disciplines are directly managing PDs and NPS, their attendance was considered most important. For each NH, the % of attendance was given as a mode (most frequently occurring % of separate disciplines). Attendance of separate disciplines is depicted in Additional File 2
  4. C The MPT and coach were supposed to have regular contact, but the number of meetings was not pre-defined
  5. D 8 weeks were planned for the problem analysis and designing the AIP, leaving 6 or 14 months (short vs. long duration) for implementation: Implementation within 8 weeks is as intended, 8–16 weeks suboptimal, > 16 weeks is deviation
  6. E Mean of Implementation scores of each action from AIP: 10-point scale (0 not at all implemented as intended – 10 totally implemented as intended) per action
  7. F Providing MPTs with their interim results was supposed to provide NHs with the opportunity to adapt the AIP. Not making changes while results indicated no improvement with respect to inappropriate PDU is considered a deviation
  8. * Only for the 8 NHs who started in the intervention group