30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Existing guidance for developing public health interventions does not provide information for researchers about how to work with intervention providers to co-produce and prototype the content and delivery of new interventions prior to evaluation. The ASSIST + Frank study aimed to adapt an existing effective peer-led smoking prevention intervention (ASSIST), integrating new content from the UK drug education resource Talk to Frank ( www.talktofrank.com) to co-produce two new school-based peer-led drug prevention interventions. A three-stage framework was tested to adapt and develop intervention content and delivery methods in collaboration with key stakeholders to facilitate implementation.

          Methods

          The three stages of the framework were: 1) Evidence review and stakeholder consultation; 2) Co-production; 3) Prototyping. During stage 1, six focus groups, 12 consultations, five interviews, and nine observations of intervention delivery were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g. Public Health Wales [PHW] ASSIST delivery team, teachers, school students, health professionals). During stage 2, an intervention development group consisting of members of the research team and the PHW ASSIST delivery team was established to adapt existing, and co-produce new, intervention activities. In stage 3, intervention training and content were iteratively prototyped using process data on fidelity and acceptability to key stakeholders. Stages 2 and 3 took the form of an action-research process involving a series of face-to-face meetings, email exchanges, observations, and training sessions.

          Results

          Utilising the three-stage framework, we co-produced and tested intervention content and delivery methods for the two interventions over a period of 18 months involving external partners. New and adapted intervention activities, as well as refinements in content, the format of delivery, timing and sequencing of activities, and training manuals resulted from this process. The involvement of intervention delivery staff, participants and teachers shaped the content and format of the interventions, as well as supporting rapid prototyping in context at the final stage.

          Conclusions

          This three-stage framework extends current guidance on intervention development by providing step-by-step instructions for co-producing and prototyping an intervention’s content and delivery processes prior to piloting and formal evaluation. This framework enhances existing guidance and could be transferred to co-produce and prototype other public health interventions.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN14415936, registered retrospectively on 05 November 2014.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4695-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice.

          The increasing use of participatory research (PR) approaches to address pressing public health issues reflects PR's potential for bridging gaps between research and practice, addressing social and environmental justice and enabling people to gain control over determinants of their health. Our critical review of the PR literature culminates in the development of an integrative practice framework that features five essential domains and provides a structured process for developing and maintaining PR partnerships, designing and implementing PR efforts, and evaluating the intermediate and long-term outcomes of descriptive, etiological, and intervention PR studies. We review the empirical and nonempirical literature in the context of this practice framework to distill the key challenges and added value of PR. Advances to the practice of PR over the next decade will require establishing the effectiveness of PR in achieving health outcomes and linking PR practices, processes, and core elements to health outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Participatory Action Research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Six steps in quality intervention development (6SQuID)

              Improving the effectiveness of public health interventions relies as much on the attention paid to their design and feasibility as to their evaluation. Yet, compared to the vast literature on how to evaluate interventions, there is little to guide researchers or practitioners on how best to develop such interventions in practical, logical, evidence based ways to maximise likely effectiveness. Existing models for the development of public health interventions tend to have a strong social-psychological, individual behaviour change orientation and some take years to implement. This paper presents a pragmatic guide to six essential Steps for Quality Intervention Development (6SQuID). The focus is on public health interventions but the model should have wider applicability. Once a problem has been identified as needing intervention, the process of designing an intervention can be broken down into six crucial steps: (1) defining and understanding the problem and its causes; (2) identifying which causal or contextual factors are modifiable: which have the greatest scope for change and who would benefit most; (3) deciding on the mechanisms of change; (4) clarifying how these will be delivered; (5) testing and adapting the intervention; and (6) collecting sufficient evidence of effectiveness to proceed to a rigorous evaluation. If each of these steps is carefully addressed, better use will be made of scarce public resources by avoiding the costly evaluation, or implementation, of unpromising interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                hawkinsj10@cardiff.ac.uk
                maddenk@cardiff.ac.uk
                FletcherA@cardiff.ac.uk
                MidgleyLS@cardiff.ac.uk
                GrantA2@cardiff.ac.uk
                Gemma.Cox@wales.nhs.uk
                laurence.moore@glasgow.ac.uk
                Rona.Campbell@bristol.ac.uk
                murphys7@cardiff.ac.uk
                chris.bonell@lshtm.ac.uk
                whitej11@cardiff.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                4 September 2017
                4 September 2017
                2017
                : 17
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0807 5670, GRID grid.5600.3, Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), , Cardiff University, ; Cardiff, CF10 3BD UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0807 5670, GRID grid.5600.3, Centre for Trials Research, , Cardiff University, ; Cardiff, CF14 4YS UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0807 5670, GRID grid.5600.3, Y Lab, Cardiff University, ; Cardiff, CF10 3AT UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.439475.8, Public Health Wales, ; Cardiff, CF10 4BZ UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2193 314X, GRID grid.8756.c, Medical Research Council /Chief Scientist Office Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, , University of Glasgow, ; Glasgow, G2 3QB UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7603, GRID grid.5337.2, Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), , University of Bristol, ; Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0425 469X, GRID grid.8991.9, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, ; London, WC1H 9SH UK
                Article
                4695
                10.1186/s12889-017-4695-8
                5583990
                28870192
                6f311e39-676e-4e32-aa39-1e1a126f66cf
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001921, Public Health Research Programme;
                Award ID: 12/3060/03
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Public health
                intervention development,public health,co-production,prototyping,transdisciplinary action research,drug prevention,adolescence

                Comments

                Comment on this article