加强护理院居民日常身体活动的策略:REACH研究项目,包括集群可行性随机对照试验

A. Forster, M. Godfrey, John Green, Nicola McMaster, Jennifer Airlie, B. Cundill, R. Lawton, R. Hawkins, C. Hulme, K. Birch, L. Brown, Robert Cicero, T. Crocker, B. Dawkins, D. Ellard, A. Ellwood, Joan Firth, Beverley Gallagher, Liz Graham, Louise Johnson, A. Lusambili, J. Marti, carolyn mccrorie, Vicki McLellan, I. Patel, A. Prashar, N. Siddiqi, D. Trépel, I. Wheeler, A. Wright, John Young, A. Farrin
{"title":"加强护理院居民日常身体活动的策略:REACH研究项目,包括集群可行性随机对照试验","authors":"A. Forster, M. Godfrey, John Green, Nicola McMaster, Jennifer Airlie, B. Cundill, R. Lawton, R. Hawkins, C. Hulme, K. Birch, L. Brown, Robert Cicero, T. Crocker, B. Dawkins, D. Ellard, A. Ellwood, Joan Firth, Beverley Gallagher, Liz Graham, Louise Johnson, A. Lusambili, J. Marti, carolyn mccrorie, Vicki McLellan, I. Patel, A. Prashar, N. Siddiqi, D. Trépel, I. Wheeler, A. Wright, John Young, A. Farrin","doi":"10.3310/pgfar09090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity.\n \n \n \n The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams.\n \n \n \n This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5).\n \n \n \n The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK.\n \n \n \n The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes.\n \n \n \n The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines.\n \n \n \n The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5).\n \n \n \n Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green).\n \n \n \n Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial.\n \n \n \n A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting.\n \n \n \n The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population.\n \n \n \n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategies to enhance routine physical activity in care home residents: the REACH research programme including a cluster feasibility RCT\",\"authors\":\"A. Forster, M. Godfrey, John Green, Nicola McMaster, Jennifer Airlie, B. Cundill, R. Lawton, R. Hawkins, C. Hulme, K. Birch, L. Brown, Robert Cicero, T. Crocker, B. Dawkins, D. Ellard, A. Ellwood, Joan Firth, Beverley Gallagher, Liz Graham, Louise Johnson, A. Lusambili, J. Marti, carolyn mccrorie, Vicki McLellan, I. Patel, A. Prashar, N. Siddiqi, D. Trépel, I. Wheeler, A. Wright, John Young, A. Farrin\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/pgfar09090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity.\\n \\n \\n \\n The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams.\\n \\n \\n \\n This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5).\\n \\n \\n \\n The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK.\\n \\n \\n \\n The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes.\\n \\n \\n \\n The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines.\\n \\n \\n \\n The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5).\\n \\n \\n \\n Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green).\\n \\n \\n \\n Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial.\\n \\n \\n \\n A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting.\\n \\n \\n \\n The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population.\\n \\n \\n \\n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":32307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar09090\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar09090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

养老院的居民主要是不活跃的,导致依赖性增加和情绪低落。虽然健身课程可能会增加活动量,但更可持续的模式是让员工和住院医生增加日常活动。目的是制定和初步测试策略,通过五个重叠的工作流程来提高护理院居民的日常身体活动,以改善他们的身体,心理和社会福祉。该试验采用混合方法研究设计,以开发和测试开展一项评估研究的可行性,该研究包括了解在护理院加强身体活动的机会和障碍(工作流程1);测试身体活动评估工具(工作流程2);通过干预映射过程制定干预措施(工作流程3);完善护理院的临时干预措施及厘清结果测量方法(工作流程4);并进行干预的集群随机可行性试验[通过基线(物理治疗师输入),2周(艺术家输入)和2个月的三个便利研讨会介绍],嵌入过程和健康经济评估(工作流程5)。该试验在英国约克郡的12个住宿护理院设置,其规模,位置,所有权和供应各不相同。参与者包括老年居民、护理员、护理院的管理人员和工作人员。干预是MoveMore,为整个家庭设计,鼓励和支持居民在日常生活中的运动。主要的结果测量与实施全面试验的可行性和可接受性有关,包括养老院和居民的招募和保留,干预措施的提供,基线数据和结果的完成和报告(包括加速度计磨损的小时数,久坐行为的小时数和身体活动的小时数和类型),以及安全和成本数据(工作流程5)。工作流程1 -通过详细了解养老院的生活,进行了需求评估,并确定了活动的障碍和促进因素。关键因素包括护理精神;组织、管理和提供护理;空间的利用;以及居民的日常生活。工作流程2 - 22(73.3%)在30名佩戴髋关节加速计的居民中有有效数据(每周≥4天≥8小时)。工作流程3——在利益攸关方咨询小组和工作流程1和2的产出的指导下,制定了增加身体活动的实际机制,并以干预绘图过程为框架。工作流程4 -在四所护理院召集了行动小组,以完善干预措施,从而进一步制定实施策略。这项名为MoveMore的干预措施是一项全屋干预措施,涉及利益相关者团体的参与,以实施周期性的变化过程,鼓励和支持居民在日常生活中的运动。工作流程5 - 12护理院和153名居民被招募到集群随机可行性试验。养老院的招聘情况各不相同(40-89%)。五家养老院被随机分配到干预组,七家被随机分配到常规护理组。预定的进展标准是养老院和住院医生的招募(绿色);提供干预措施(琥珀色);数据收集和随访——52%的居民在9个月时提供了可用的加速度计数据(红色),> 75%的居民在9个月时报告了结果(绿色,但自我报告的居民结果为红色),26%的居民在9个月时失去了随访[只是缺少绿色标准(不大于25%)]和安全问题(绿色)。对居民活动的观察不在私人空间进行。与养老院居民一起确定适当的结果措施是具有挑战性的。在一些地方,干预措施的使用是次优的。在确定的试验中,不可能对最合适的身体活动终点做出可靠的知情决定。我们开发了一种全家庭干预,由工作人员拥有和提供,并由居民和工作人员告知。我们成功地测试了进行整群随机对照试验的可行性:招募了目标数量的护理院和居民,证明招募护理院居民参加整群随机试验是可能的,尽管这个过程耗时且资源繁重。收集了大量数据集,提供了护理院环境、居民和工作人员的全面情况。广泛的定量和定性工作全面探索了卫生和社会保健研究的一个被忽视的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Strategies to enhance routine physical activity in care home residents: the REACH research programme including a cluster feasibility RCT
Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity. The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams. This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5). The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK. The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes. The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5). Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green). Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial. A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting. The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Collaborative care intervention for individuals with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 programme including complex intervention development and cluster RCT Developing primary care services for stroke survivors: the Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) research programme Improving the understanding and management of back pain in older adults: the BOOST research programme including RCT and OPAL cohort A casemix classification for those receiving specialist palliative care during their last year of life across England: the C-CHANGE research programme Peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care: the ENRICH research programme
×
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