Assessing fidelity of design and training of Making Every Contact Count (MECC) in a mental health inpatient setting.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMC Public Health Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1186/s12889-024-20774-5
Emma Kemp, Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino, Rob Wilson, Milica Vasiljevic, Kate McBride, Craig Robson, Sally Faulkner, Mish Loraine, Jill Harland, Catherine Haighton, Angela Rodrigues
{"title":"Assessing fidelity of design and training of Making Every Contact Count (MECC) in a mental health inpatient setting.","authors":"Emma Kemp, Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino, Rob Wilson, Milica Vasiljevic, Kate McBride, Craig Robson, Sally Faulkner, Mish Loraine, Jill Harland, Catherine Haighton, Angela Rodrigues","doi":"10.1186/s12889-024-20774-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Making Every Contact Count (MECC) is a public health strategy which strives to enable brief interventions to be implemented through opportunistic healthy lifestyle conversations. In a mental health inpatient setting a bespoke MECC training package has been developed to encourage cascade training through a train the trainer model and to incorporate an additional regional health strategy A Weight Off Your Mind into Core MECC training to provide a focus on healthy weight management. This study evaluated the fidelity of design of MECC in the mental health inpatient setting and fidelity of the training package currently being cascaded across the region.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Initially a documentary analysis of six documents shared through the mental health inpatient setting including MECC implementation guide, logic model, checklist and evaluation framework. Documents were analysed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and coded using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy version one (BCTTv1) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Taxonomy. Coding was compared against MECC guidance documents to complete the fidelity assessment. A training delivery guide, training slides and two recordings of both train the trainer and Core MECC + A Weight Off Your Mind training were analysed for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and compared to conduct a fidelity training assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall the implementation of MECC in the mental health inpatient setting had moderate fidelity to the MECC guidance, with a total of 31 BCTs identified across guidance and provider documents and a 77% adherence of provider documents to guidance. The highest level of fidelity applied to the MECC implementation guide where 86% of identified BCTs were also present. The training package showed high fidelity that both training programmes were being delivered as intended with 100% of BCT matched from training materials to training transcripts. Potential loss of fidelity through additional BCTs was present across provider documents and training transcripts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The implementation of MECC across the mental health inpatient setting and the training package appear to be delivered as intended therefore demonstrating good fidelity and potential benefits to public health. Future research would benefit from assessing cascade training sessions from those who have completed train the trainer to evaluate ongoing fidelity of training across the trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"3335"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20774-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Making Every Contact Count (MECC) is a public health strategy which strives to enable brief interventions to be implemented through opportunistic healthy lifestyle conversations. In a mental health inpatient setting a bespoke MECC training package has been developed to encourage cascade training through a train the trainer model and to incorporate an additional regional health strategy A Weight Off Your Mind into Core MECC training to provide a focus on healthy weight management. This study evaluated the fidelity of design of MECC in the mental health inpatient setting and fidelity of the training package currently being cascaded across the region.

Methods: Initially a documentary analysis of six documents shared through the mental health inpatient setting including MECC implementation guide, logic model, checklist and evaluation framework. Documents were analysed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and coded using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy version one (BCTTv1) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Taxonomy. Coding was compared against MECC guidance documents to complete the fidelity assessment. A training delivery guide, training slides and two recordings of both train the trainer and Core MECC + A Weight Off Your Mind training were analysed for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and compared to conduct a fidelity training assessment.

Results: Overall the implementation of MECC in the mental health inpatient setting had moderate fidelity to the MECC guidance, with a total of 31 BCTs identified across guidance and provider documents and a 77% adherence of provider documents to guidance. The highest level of fidelity applied to the MECC implementation guide where 86% of identified BCTs were also present. The training package showed high fidelity that both training programmes were being delivered as intended with 100% of BCT matched from training materials to training transcripts. Potential loss of fidelity through additional BCTs was present across provider documents and training transcripts.

Conclusion: The implementation of MECC across the mental health inpatient setting and the training package appear to be delivered as intended therefore demonstrating good fidelity and potential benefits to public health. Future research would benefit from assessing cascade training sessions from those who have completed train the trainer to evaluate ongoing fidelity of training across the trust.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
期刊最新文献
Conspiracy narratives and vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review of prevalence, impact, and interventions. Familial resemblance in dietary intake among singletons, twins, and spouses: a meta-analysis of family-based observations. Global, regional, and national pancreatitis burden and health inequality of pancreatitis from 1990 to 2019 with a prediction from 2020 to 2034. Assessing fidelity of design and training of Making Every Contact Count (MECC) in a mental health inpatient setting. Bayesian geo-additive model to analyze spatial pattern and determinants of maternal mortality in Ethiopia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1