Search

Background: Variation in the implementation of complex multilevel interventions can impact on their delivery and outcomes. Few suicide prevention interventions, especially multilevel interventions, have included evaluation of both the process of implementation as well as outcomes. Such evaluation is essential for the replication of interventions, for interpreting and understanding outcomes, and for improving implementation science. This paper reports on a process evaluation of the early implementation stage of an optimised suicide prevention programme (OSPI-Europe) implemented in four European countries. Methods: The process analysis was conducted within the framework of a realist evaluation methodology, and involved case studies of the process of implementation in four European countries. Datasets include: repeated questionnaires to track progress of implementation including delivery of individual activities and their intensity; serial interviews and focus groups with stakeholder groups; and detailed observations at OSPI implementation team meetings. Results: Analysis of local contexts in each of the four countries revealed that the advisory group was a key mechanism that had a substantial impact on the ease of implementation of OSPI interventions, particularly on their ability to recruit to training interventions. However, simply recruiting representatives of key organisations into an advisory group is not sufficient to achieve impact on the delivery of interventions. In order to maximise the potential of high level 'gatekeepers', it is necessary to first transform them into OSPI stakeholders. Motivations for OSPI participation as a stakeholder included: personal affinity with the shared goals and target groups within OSPI; the complementary and participatory nature of OSPI that adds value to pre-existing suicide prevention initiatives; and reciprocal reward for participants through access to the extended network capacity that organisations could accrue for themselves and their organisations from participation in OSPI. Conclusions: Exploring the role of advisory groups and the meaning of participation for these participants revealed some key areas for best practice in implementation: careful planning of the composition of the advisory group to access target groups; the importance of establishing common goals; the importance of acknowledging and complementing existing experience and activity; and facilitating an equivalence of benefit from network participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been significant investment in developing guidelines to improve clinical and public health practice. Though much is known about the processes of evidence synthesis and evidence-based guidelines implementation, we know little about how evidence presented to advisory groups is interpreted and used to form practice recommendations or what happens where evidence is lacking. This study investigates how members of advisory groups of NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) conceptualize evidence and experience the process. Methods: Members of three advisory groups for acute physical, mental and public health were interviewed at the beginning and end of the life of the group. Seventeen were interviewed at both time points; five were interviewed just once at time one; and 17 were interviewed only once after guidance completion. Using thematic and content analysis, interview transcripts were analysed to identify the main themes. Results: Three themes were identified: 1. What is the task? Different members conceptualized the task differently; some emphasized the importance of evidence at the top of the quality hierarchy while others emphasized the importance of personal experience. 2. Who gets heard? Managing the diversity of opinion and vested interests was a challenge for the groups; service users were valued and as was the importance of fostering good working relationships between group members. 3. What is the process? Group members valued debate and recognized the need to marshal discussion; most members were satisfied with the process and output. Conclusions: Evidence doesn't form recommendations on its own, but requires human judgement. Diversity of opinion within advisory groups was seen as key to making well-informed judgments relevant to forming recommendations. However, that diversity can bring tensions in the evaluation of evidence and its translation into practice recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]