Search

Abstract Background Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in remote Australia have initiated bold policies for health-enabling stores. Benchmarking, a data-driven and facilitated ‘audit and feedback’ with action planning process, provides a potential strategy to strengthen and scale health-enabling best-practice adoption by remote community store directors/owners. We aim to co-design a benchmarking model with five partner organisations and test its effectiveness with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores in remote Australia. Methods Study design is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with consenting eligible stores (located in very remote Northern Territory (NT) of Australia, primary grocery store for an Aboriginal community, and serviced by a Nutrition Practitioner with a study partner organisation). The Benchmarking model is informed by research evidence, purpose-built best-practice audit and feedback tools, and co-designed with partner organisation and community representatives. The intervention comprises two full benchmarking cycles (one per year, 2022/23 and 2023/24) of assessment, feedback, action planning and action implementation. Assessment of stores includes i adoption status of 21 evidence-and industry-informed health-enabling policies for remote stores, ii implementation of health-enabling best-practice using a purpose-built Store Scout App, iii price of a standardised healthy diet using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healthy Diets ASAP protocol; and, iv healthiness of food purchasing using sales data indicators. Partner organisations feedback reports and co-design action plans with stores. Control stores receive assessments and continue with usual retail practice. All stores provide weekly electronic sales data to assess the primary outcome, change in free sugars (g) to energy (MJ) from all food and drinks purchased, baseline (July-December 2021) vs July-December 2023. Discussion We hypothesise that the benchmarking intervention can improve the adoption of health-enabling store policy and practice and reduce sales of unhealthy foods and drinks in remote community stores of Australia. This innovative research with remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can inform effective implementation strategies for healthy food retail more broadly. Trial registration ACTRN12622000596707, Protocol version 1.

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in remote Australia have initiated bold policies for health-enabling stores. Benchmarking, a data-driven and facilitated 'audit and feedback' with action planning process, provides a potential strategy to strengthen and scale health-enabling best-practice adoption by remote community store directors/owners. We aim to co-design a benchmarking model with five partner organisations and test its effectiveness with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores in remote Australia. Methods: Study design is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with consenting eligible stores (located in very remote Northern Territory (NT) of Australia, primary grocery store for an Aboriginal community, and serviced by a Nutrition Practitioner with a study partner organisation). The Benchmarking model is informed by research evidence, purpose-built best-practice audit and feedback tools, and co-designed with partner organisation and community representatives. The intervention comprises two full benchmarking cycles (one per year, 2022/23 and 2023/24) of assessment, feedback, action planning and action implementation. Assessment of stores includes i adoption status of 21 evidence-and industry-informed health-enabling policies for remote stores, ii implementation of health-enabling best-practice using a purpose-built Store Scout App, iii price of a standardised healthy diet using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healthy Diets ASAP protocol; and, iv healthiness of food purchasing using sales data indicators. Partner organisations feedback reports and co-design action plans with stores. Control stores receive assessments and continue with usual retail practice. All stores provide weekly electronic sales data to assess the primary outcome, change in free sugars (g) to energy (MJ) from all food and drinks purchased, baseline (July-December 2021) vs July-December 2023. Discussion: We hypothesise that the benchmarking intervention can improve the adoption of health-enabling store policy and practice and reduce sales of unhealthy foods and drinks in remote community stores of Australia. This innovative research with remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can inform effective implementation strategies for healthy food retail more broadly. Trial registration: ACTRN12622000596707, Protocol version 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Cost is an important determinant of health program implementation. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation strategy of Mozambique’s school-based HPV vaccine demonstration project. We sought to estimate the total costs for the program, cost per fully immunized girl (FIG), and compute projections for the total cost of implementing a similar national level vaccination program. Methods We collected primary data through document review, participatory observation, and key informant interviews at all levels of the national health system and Ministry of Education. We used a combination of micro-costing methods—identification and measurement of resource quantities and valuation by application of unit costs, and gross costing—for consideration of resource bundles as they apply to the number of vaccinated girls. We extrapolated the cost per FIG to the HPV-vaccine-eligible population of Mozambique, to demonstrate the projected total annual cost for two scenarios of a similarly executed HPV vaccine program. Results The total cost of the Mozambique HPV vaccine demonstration project was $523,602. The mean cost per FIG was $72 (Credibility Intervals (CI): $62 - $83) in year one, $38 (CI: $37 - $40) in year two, and $54 CI: $49 - $61) for years one and two. The mean cost per FIG with the third HPV vaccine dose excluded from consideration was $60 (CI: $50 - $72) in year one, $38 (CI: $31 - $46) in year two, and $48 (CI: $42 - $55) for years one and two. The mean cost per FIG when only one HPV vaccine dose is considered was $30 (CI: $27 - $33)) in year one, $19 (CI: $15–$23) in year two, and $24 (CI: $22–$27) for both years. The projected annual cost of a two-and one-dose vaccine program targeting all 10-year-old girls in the country was $18.2 m (CI: $15.9 m - $20.7 m) and $9 m (CI: $8 m - $10 m) respectively. Conclusion National adaptation and scale-up of Mozambique’s school-based HPV vaccine strategy may result in substantial costs depending on dosing. For sustainability, stakeholders will need to negotiate vaccine price and achieve higher efficiency in startup activities and demand creation.

Abstract Background Adequate implementation of work-related stress management interventions can reduce or prevent work-related stress and sick leave in organizations. We developed a multifaceted integral stress-prevention strategy for organizations from several sectors that includes a digital platform and collaborative learning network. The digital platform contains a stepwise protocol to implement work-related stress-management interventions. It includes stress screeners, interventions and intervention providers to facilitate access to and the selection of matching work-related stress-management interventions. The collaborative learning network, including stakeholders from various organizations, plans meetings focussing on an exchange of experiences and good practices among organizations for the implementation of stress prevention measures. This paper describes the design of an integral stress-prevention strategy, Stress Prevention@Work, and the protocol for the evaluation of: 1) the effects of the strategy on perceived stress and work-related outcomes, and 2) the barriers and facilitators for implementation of the strategy. Methods The effectiveness of Stress Prevention@Work will be evaluated in a cluster controlled trial, in a large healthcare organization in the Netherlands, at six and 12 months. An independent researcher will match teams on working conditions and size and allocate the teams to the intervention or control group. Teams in the intervention group will be offered Stress Prevention@Work. For each intervention team, one employee is responsible for applying the strategy within his/her team using the digital platform and visiting the collaborative learning network. Using a waiting list design, the control group will be given access to the strategy after 12 months. The primary outcome is the employees’ perceived stress measured by the stress subscale of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Secondary outcome measures are job demands, job resources and the number of preventive stress measures implemented at the team level. Alongside the trial, a process evaluation, including barriers and facilitators of the implementation of Stress Prevention@Work, will be conducted in one healthcare organisation. Discussion If Stress Prevention@Work is found to be effective in one healthcare organisation, further implementation on a broader scale might lead to increased productivity and decreased stress and sick leave in other organizations. Results are expected in 2018. Trial registration NTR5527 . Registered 7 Dec 2015.

Background: Adequate implementation of work-related stress management interventions can reduce or prevent work-related stress and sick leave in organizations. We developed a multifaceted integral stress-prevention strategy for organizations from several sectors that includes a digital platform and collaborative learning network. The digital platform contains a stepwise protocol to implement work-related stress-management interventions. It includes stress screeners, interventions and intervention providers to facilitate access to and the selection of matching work-related stress-management interventions. The collaborative learning network, including stakeholders from various organizations, plans meetings focussing on an exchange of experiences and good practices among organizations for the implementation of stress prevention measures. This paper describes the design of an integral stress-prevention strategy, Stress Prevention@Work, and the protocol for the evaluation of: 1) the effects of the strategy on perceived stress and work-related outcomes, and 2) the barriers and facilitators for implementation of the strategy.Methods: The effectiveness of Stress Prevention@Work will be evaluated in a cluster controlled trial, in a large healthcare organization in the Netherlands, at six and 12 months. An independent researcher will match teams on working conditions and size and allocate the teams to the intervention or control group. Teams in the intervention group will be offered Stress Prevention@Work. For each intervention team, one employee is responsible for applying the strategy within his/her team using the digital platform and visiting the collaborative learning network. Using a waiting list design, the control group will be given access to the strategy after 12 months. The primary outcome is the employees' perceived stress measured by the stress subscale of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Secondary outcome measures are job demands, job resources and the number of preventive stress measures implemented at the team level. Alongside the trial, a process evaluation, including barriers and facilitators of the implementation of Stress Prevention@Work, will be conducted in one healthcare organisation.Discussion: If Stress Prevention@Work is found to be effective in one healthcare organisation, further implementation on a broader scale might lead to increased productivity and decreased stress and sick leave in other organizations. Results are expected in 2018.Trial Registration: NTR5527 . Registered 7 Dec 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Worksite health promotion programs (WHPPs) offer an attractive opportunity to improve the lifestyle of employees. Nevertheless, broad scale and successful implementation of WHPPs in daily practice often fails. In the present study, called BRAVO@Work, a 7-step implementation strategy was used to develop, implement and embed a WHPP in two different worksites with a focus on multiple lifestyle interventions. This article describes the design and framework for the formative evaluation of this 7-step strategy under real-time conditions by an embedded scientist with the purpose to gain insight into whether this this 7-step strategy is a useful and effective implementation strategy. Furthermore, we aim to gain insight into factors that either facilitate or hamper the implementation process, the quality of the implemented lifestyle interventions and the degree of adoption, implementation and continuation of these interventions. Methods and design: This study is a formative evaluation within two different worksites with an embedded scientist on site to continuously monitor the implementation process. Each worksite (i.e. a University of Applied Sciences and an Academic Hospital) will assign a participating faculty or a department, to implement a WHPP focusing on lifestyle interventions using the 7-step strategy. The primary focus will be to describe the natural course of development, implementation and maintenance of a WHPP by studying [a] the use and adherence to the 7-step strategy, [b] barriers and facilitators that influence the natural course of adoption, implementation and maintenance, and [c] the implementation process of the lifestyle interventions. All data will be collected using qualitative (i.e. real-time monitoring and semi-structured interviews) and quantitative methods (i.e. process evaluation questionnaires) applying data triangulation. Except for the real-time monitoring, the data collection will take place at baseline and after 6, 12 and 18 months. Discussion: This is one of the few studies to extensively and continuously monitor the natural course of the implementation process of a WHPP by a formative evaluation using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods on different organizational levels (i.e. management, project group, employees) with an embedded scientist on site. Trial Registration: NTR2861 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]