Beyond effectiveness in eHealth trials: Process evaluation of a stepped-care programme to support healthcare workers with psychological distress (RESPOND-HCWs)
Objectives: This study presents the process evaluation of an effective stepped-care programme of eHealth interventions (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress [DWM] and Problem Management Plus [PM+]) for healthcare workers (HCWs) with psychological distress (RESPOND-HCWs trial) conducted in Spain. Th...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid |
| Repositorio: | Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/720641 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/10486/720641 https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20552076241287678 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | eHealth health care healthcare workers internet-based intervention Mental health process assessment qualitative evaluation quantitative evaluation Medicina |
| Resumo: | Objectives: This study presents the process evaluation of an effective stepped-care programme of eHealth interventions (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress [DWM] and Problem Management Plus [PM+]) for healthcare workers (HCWs) with psychological distress (RESPOND-HCWs trial) conducted in Spain. The aim is to analyse the context in which the programme was delivered, assess key implementation outcomes and explore mechanisms of action. Methods: We used mixed methods. Quantitative data came from routine randomised control trial monitoring and structured observation, and qualitative data were collected using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with trial participants (n = 12) and decision-makers (n = 7) and a focus group discussion with intervention providers (n = 7). We conducted a descriptive analysis of quantitative data using R software and a thematic analysis of qualitative data using NVivo. Results: Context analysis revealed implementation barriers, including unrealistic expectations of participants about the programme and mental health-related stigma. The flexibility of interventions and the opportunity for mental health actions were enabling factors. Implementation outcomes showed that the trial was feasible, appropriate and timely, and that the intervention was delivered with minimal protocol deviations and good acceptance among participants. Mechanisms of action included confidence in the positive effect of the intervention, a good therapeutic relationship and specific intervention components. Conclusions: These results supplement the outcome evaluation and can help inform large-scale implementation in similar settings. Specific recommendations include increasing mental health awareness and reducing stigma in the implementation setting, including a short orientation session and ensuring flexibility in schedules and peer support |
|---|