Search

Background: The prevalence of mental health problems in childhood and adolescence has increased significantly, not least due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and other countries worldwide. Although holistic school interventions to promote mental health and prevent mental health problems are considered promising, there is currently uncertainty about their effectiveness due to evaluation studies with heterogeneous methodological quality. This paper presents the study protocol for the evaluation of the primary school module of MindMatters. Methods: As part of a universal mental health intervention, the MindMatters primary school module 'Learning Together with Emotions' aims to promote social-emotional learning (SEL) in the classroom across five skill areas. In addition to classroom activities, the intervention includes a school development module to help primary schools create structures and processes to maintain and promote mental health. To evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, a two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted, including schools implementing MindMatters over a 12-month period and a control group with no access to the intervention. Data will be collected before and 18 months after initiation of the intervention. Controlled for baseline conditions, multilevel regression analysis will be used to examine primary intervention outcomes at the pupil level (i.e. reductions in mental and behavioural problems). Further mediation and moderation analyses will examine whether proximal outcomes predict changes in mental health outcomes and whether school-level factors influence the effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion: This study will contribute to strengthen the evidence base for holistic school (mental) health promotion interventions using a study design with high internal validity. Based on an intervention model, the results will not only provide insights into the relationship between proximal and distal outcomes, but will also allow conclusions to be drawn about how the implementation of the intervention affects its effectiveness. Finally, the findings also address the question of whether improved mental health has a positive effect on primary school pupils' academic performance. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023762. Registered on 5 January 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the healthcare system in Germany, different institutions and actors play specific roles in the discharge and transition of patients from hospitals into primary care (Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen, Wettbewerb an der Schnittstelle zwischen ambulanter und stationärer Gesundheitsversorgung, 2012). However, there are shortcomings in these intersectoral transitions. Especially in older people with cognitive impairment (PCI), discharge management often lacks coordination and cooperation between healthcare providers. This frequently results in higher rates of unscheduled readmission. The project intersec-CM is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to explore up to what extent an intersectoral care management (ICM) can improve this transition. This ICM is delivered by nurses with special training in care management. The objective of this paper is to describe a mixed-methods process evaluation of the intersectoral care management intervention and the factors that facilitate and inhibit its implementation.Methods: Different study designs for process evaluations from previous literature were collected and analysed according to the dimension implementation fidelity, satisfaction with the intervention, feasible transfer into routine care, optimum point of time, frequency and execution of the intervention, and context factors.Results: The actor-network theory was chosen as the theoretic framework for the process evaluation. Based on this theory, a mixed-methods design was developed to combine and integrate qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods. The qualitative part includes semi-structured interviews using topic guides (phase 1) and later in-depth interviews with narrative portions (phase 3), which will be analysed by using the qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. The quantitative survey (phase 2) is conducted with standardised questionnaires.Discussion: Challenges in data collection include the development of interview guidelines, which require different terminologies depending on every specific actor targeted in the intervention. Conducting the interviews, there is a risk of misunderstanding the older PCI by the interviewer and vice versa. However, the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches as different techniques of process evaluation may help to capture, integrate and analyse data on different dimensions of the intervention.Conclusions: The results of our process evaluation may serve as an implementation guideline for intersectoral care management in the German healthcare system. Furthermore, the approach to evaluate the process of a complex intervention in health care for older PCI may serve as a stimulus to broaden the evidence base also of other complex intervention studies to improve health care for this vulnerable group. The study was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University of Greifswald. The study has been registered at the U.S. National Library of Medicine.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03359408 . Registered on 2 December 2017. The approximate date when recruitment to the process evaluation of the study will be completed is 31 May 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complex interventions encompassing several interconnecting and interacting components can be challenging to evaluate. Examining the underlying trial processes while an intervention is being tested can assist in explaining why an intervention was effective (or not). This paper describes a process evaluation of a pan-European cluster randomised controlled trial, OptiBIRTH (undertaken in Ireland, Italy and Germany), that successfully used both quantitative and qualitative methods to enhance understanding of the underlying trial mechanisms and their effect on the trial outcome.Methods: We carried out a mixed methods process evaluation. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from observation of the implementation of the intervention in practice to determine whether it was delivered according to the original protocol. Data were examined to assess the delivery of the various components of the intervention and the receipt of the intervention by key stakeholders (pregnant women, midwives, obstetricians). Using ethnography, an exploration of perceived experiences from a range of recipients was conducted to understand the perspective of both those delivering and those receiving the intervention.Results: Engagement by stakeholders with the different components of the intervention varied from minimal intensity of women's engagement with antenatal classes, to moderate intensity of engagement with online resources, to high intensity of clinicians' exposure to the education sessions provided. The ethnography determined that, although the overall culture in the intervention site did not change, smaller, more individual cultural changes were observed. The fidelity of the delivery of the intervention scored average quality marks of 80% and above on repeat assessments.Conclusion: Nesting a process evaluation within the trial enabled the observation of the mode of action of the intervention in its practice context and ensured that the intervention was delivered with a good level of consistency. Implementation problems were identified as they arose and were addressed accordingly. When dealing with a complex intervention, collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data, as we did, can greatly enhance the process evaluation.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials Register, ISRCTN10612254 . Registered on 3 April 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The identification of suitable patients is a common problem in clinical trials that is especially evident in tertiary care hospitals. Methods: We developed and analysed a workflow, which uses routine data captured during patient care in a hospital information system (HIS), to identify potential trial subjects. Study nurses or physicians are notified automatically by email and verify eligibility. Results: As a case study we implemented the system for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) trials in Münster. During a test period of 50 days 41 patients were identified by the system. 13 could be included as new trial patients, 7 were already included during earlier visits. According to review of paper records no AML trial patient was missed by the system. In addition, the hospital information system further allowed to preselect patients for specific trials based on their disease status and individual characteristics. Conclusion: Routine HIS data can be used to support patient recruitment for clinical trials by means of an automated notification workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]