BackgroundDue to their central position in the modern food system, food stores present a unique opportunity to promote healthy dietary behaviour. However, there is a lack of insight into the factors that impede or enhance the implementation of nutritional interventions in food stores. We applied a systems innovation and implementation science framework to the identification of such barriers and facilitators.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review. A search string was developed to identify qualitative and quantitative articles on environmental nutritional interventions in the food store. Four databases were systematically searched for studies published between 2000 and 2018. Eligible publications described study designs or original studies, focused on stimulating healthier dietary behaviour through environmental changes in retail settings and contained information on the perceptions or experiences of retailers or interventionists regarding the implementation process of the intervention. Context-descriptive data was extracted and a quality assessment was performed.ResultsWe included 41 articles, of which the majority was conducted in the USA and involved single stores or a mix of single and multi-store organisations. We categorized barriers and facilitators into 18 themes, under five domains. In the ‘outer setting’ domain, most factors related to consumers’ preferences and demands, and the challenge of establishing a supply of healthy products. In the ‘inner setting’ domain, these related to conflicting values regarding health promotion and commercial viability, store lay-out, (insufficient) knowledge and work capacity, and routines regarding waste avoidance and product stocking. In the ‘actors’ domain, no major themes were found. For the ‘intervention ‘domain’, most related to intervention-context fit, money and resource provision, material quality, and the trade-offs between commercial costs and risks versus commercial and health benefits. For the ‘process’ domain, most factors related to continuous engagement and strong relationships.ConclusionsThis review provides a comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators to be taken into account when implementing nutritional interventions in food stores. Furthermore, we propose a novel perspective on implementation as the alignment of intervention and retail interests, and a corresponding approach to intervention design which may help avoid barriers, and leverage facilitators.Trial registrationPROSPERO; CRD42018095317.

Background Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

No abstract

BackgroundTo compare experienced continuity of care among women who received midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care. Secondly, to compare experienced continuity of care with a. experienced quality of care during labor and b. perception of labor.MethodsWe conducted a questionnaire survey in a region in the Netherlands in 2014 among 790 women after they gave birth. To measure experienced continuity of care, the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire was used. Quality of care during labor was measured with the Pregnancy and Childbirth Questionnaire, and to measure perception of labor we used the Childbirth Perception Scale.ResultsThree hundred twenty five women consented to participate (41%). Of these, 187 women completed the relevant questions in the online questionnaire. 136 (73%) women were in midwife-led care at the onset of labor, 15 (8%) were in obstetrician-led care throughout pregnancy and 36 (19%) were referred to obstetrician-led care during pregnancy. Experienced personal and team continuity of care during pregnancy were higher for women in midwife-led care compared to those in obstetrician-led care at the onset of labor. Experienced continuity of care was moderately correlated with experienced quality of care although not significantly so in all subgroups. A weak negative correlation was found between experienced personal continuity of care by the midwife and perception of labor.ConclusionThis study suggests that experienced continuity of care depends on the care context and is significantly higher for women who are in midwife-led compared to obstetrician-led care during labor. It will be a challenge to maintain the high level of experienced continuity of care in an integrated maternity care system.Experienced continuity of care seems to be a distinctive concept that should not be confused with experienced quality of care or perception of labor and should be considered as a complementary aspect of quality of care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-017-1615-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundInitiating and maintaining a healthy lifestyle -including healthy eating and sufficient physical activity- is key for cardiometabolic health. A health-promoting environment can facilitate a healthy lifestyle, and may be especially helpful to reach individuals with a lower socio-economic status (SES). In the Supreme Nudge project, we will study the effects of pricing and nudging strategies in the supermarket – one of the most important point-of-choice settings for food choices – and of a context-specific mobile physical activity promotion app. This paper describes the stepwise and theory-based design of Supreme Nudge, which aims to develop, implement and evaluate environmental changes for a sustained impact on lifestyle behaviours and cardiometabolic health in low SES adults.MethodsSupreme Nudge uses a multi-disciplinary and mixed methods approach, integrating participatory action research, qualitative interviews, experimental pilot studies, and a randomized controlled trial in a real-life (supermarket) setting. First, we will identify the needs, characteristics and preferences of the target group as well as of the participating supermarket chain. Second, we will conduct a series of pilot studies to test novel, promising and feasible intervention components. Third, a final selection of intervention components will be implemented in a full-scale randomised controlled supermarket trial. Approximately 1000 low SES adults will be recruited across 8–12 supermarkets and randomised at supermarket level to receive 1) no intervention (control); 2) environmental nudges such as food product placement or promotion; 3) nudges and a tailored physical activity app that provides time- and context specific feedback; 4) pricing interventions, nudges, and the physical activity app. The effects on dietary behaviours and physical activity will be evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months, and on cardiometabolic health at 6 and 12 months. Finally, we will evaluate the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) of the intervention, and we will use insights from System Innovation and Transition Management theories to define the best strategies for implementation and upscaling beyond the study period.DiscussionThe Supreme Nudge project is likely to generate thorough evidence relevant for policy and practice on the effects of a mixed method and multi-disciplinary intervention targeting dietary behaviours and physical activity.Trial registrationThe real-life trial has been registered on 30 May 2018, NTR7302.

Background Patient engagement is becoming more customary in medicine development. However, embedding it in organizational decision‐making remains challenging, partly due to lack of agreement on its value and the means to evaluate it. The objective of this project was to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework, with metrics, to demonstrate impact and enhance learning. Methods A consortium of five patient groups, 15 biopharmaceutical companies and two academic groups iteratively created a framework in a multi‐phase participatory process, including analysis of its application in 24 cases. Results The framework includes six components, with 87 metrics and 15 context factors distributed among (sub)components: (a) Input: expectations, preparations, resources, representativeness of stakeholders; (b) Activities/process: structure, management, interactions, satisfaction; (c) Learnings and changes; (d) Impacts: research relevance, study ethics and inclusiveness, study quality and efficiency, quality of evidence and uptake of products, empowerment, reputation and trust, embedding of patient engagement; (e) Context: policy, institutional, community, decision‐making contextual factors. Case study findings show a wide variation in use of metrics. There is no ‘one size fits all’ set of metrics appropriate for every initiative or organization. Presented sample sets of metrics can be tailored to individual situations. Conclusion Introducing change into any process is best done when the value of that change is clear. This framework allows participants to select what metrics they value and assess to what extent patient engagement has contributed. Patient contribution Five patient groups were involved in all phases of the study (design, conduct, interpretation of data) and in writing the manuscript.

Background: Efforts to engage patients as partners in health research have grown and thereby the need for feedback and evaluation. In this pilot evaluation study, we aimed to 1) evaluate patient engagement in health research projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and 2) learn more about how to best monitor and evaluate patient engagement. This paper presents the results of our participatory evaluation study and the lessons learned. The evaluation of the projects was driven by questions patients wanted answered. Methods: We conducted a formative evaluation of patient engagement in health research projects. Projects spanned a variety of topics, target groups, research designs and methods of patient engagement. Participants included principal investigators (n = 6) and their patient partners (n = 14). Furthermore, graduate students (n = 13) working on their own research projects participated. Participants completed an online survey with closed and open-ended questions about their patient engagement efforts, experiences and preliminary outcomes. Patients were involved as co-investigators in the entire evaluation study. We used qualitative methods to evaluate our participatory process. Results: The evaluation study results show that most patients and researchers felt prepared and worked together in various phases of the research process. Both groups felt that the insights and comments of patients influenced research decisions. They believed that patient engagement improved the quality and uptake of research. Students felt less prepared and were less satisfied with their patient engagement experience compared to researchers and their patient partners. Involvement of patient co-investigators in this evaluation resulted in learnings, transparency, validation of findings and increased applicability. Challenges were to select evaluation questions relevant to all stakeholders and to adapt evaluation tools to local needs.