Communities in charge of alcohol (CICA): a protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised control trial of an alcohol health champions programme

Cook, Penny A.; Hargreaves, Suzy C.; Burns, Elizabeth J.; Vocht, Frank de; Parrott, Steve; Coffey, Margaret; Audrey, Suzanne; Ure, Cathy; Duffy, Paul; Ottiwell, David; Kenth, Kiran; Hare, Susan; Ardern, Kate

doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5410-0

Cited by 62 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other effectiveness evaluations, quantitative methods are used to evaluate program or intervention outcomes, while mixed methods play a secondary role in evaluation of process. For example, Cook and colleagues (13) proposed to use a stepped wedge randomized design to examine the effect of an alcohol health champions program. A process evaluation will explore the context, implementation and response to the intervention using mixed methods (quan dc + qual dc ) in which the two types of data are merged (qual da →← qual da ) to provide a complementary perspective on these phenomena.…”

Section: Illustrations Of Mixed Methods Designs In Evaluation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations

Palinkas

Mendon

Hamilton

2019

Annu. Rev. Public Health

200

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed methods research—i.e., research that draws on both qualitative and qualitative methods in varying configurations—is well suited to address the increasing complexity of public health problems and their solutions. This review focuses specifically on innovations in mixed methods evaluations of intervention, program or policy (i.e., practice) effectiveness and implementation. The article begins with an overview of the structure, function and process of different mixed methods designs and then provides illustrations of their use in effectiveness studies, implementation studies, and combined effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies. The article then examines four specific innovations: procedures for transforming (or “quantitizing”) qualitative data, applying rapid assessment and analysis procedures in the context of mixed methods studies, development of measures to assess implementation outcomes, and strategies for conducting both random and purposive sampling particularly in implementation-focused evaluation research. The article concludes with an assessment of challenges to integrating qualitative and quantitative data in evaluation research.

show abstract

Section: Illustrations Of Mixed Methods Designs In Evaluation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations

Palinkas

Mendon

Hamilton

2019

Annu. Rev. Public Health

200

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, the use of the term 'natural' has been understood more broadly as an event which did not involve the deliberate manipulation of exposure for research purposes (for example a policy change), even if human agency was involved [17]. Compared to natural experiments in QES the research team may be able to influence exposure allocation, even if the event or exposure itself is not under their full control; for example in a phased roll out of a policy [18]. A well-known example of a natural experiment is the "Dutch Hunger Winter" summarised by Lumey et al [19].…”

Section: Natural and Quasi Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising natural and quasi experiments in public health

Vocht

Katikireddi

McQuire

et al. 2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Natural or quasi experiments are appealing for public health research because they enable the evaluation of events or interventions that are difficult or impossible to manipulate experimentally, such as many policy and health system reforms. However, there remains ambiguity in the literature about their definition and how they differ from randomized controlled experiments and from other observational designs. We conceptualise natural experiments in the context of public health evaluations and align the study design to the Target Trial Framework. Methods A literature search was conducted, and key methodological papers were used to develop this work. Peer-reviewed papers were supplemented by grey literature. Results Natural experiment studies (NES) combine features of experiments and non-experiments. They differ from planned experiments, such as randomized controlled trials, in that exposure allocation is not controlled by researchers. They differ from other observational designs in that they evaluate the impact of events or process that leads to differences in exposure. As a result they are, in theory, less susceptible to bias than other observational study designs. Importantly, causal inference relies heavily on the assumption that exposure allocation can be considered ‘as-if randomized’. The target trial framework provides a systematic basis for evaluating this assumption and the other design elements that underpin the causal claims that can be made from NES. Conclusions NES should be considered a type of study design rather than a set of tools for analyses of non-randomized interventions. Alignment of NES to the Target Trial framework will clarify the strength of evidence underpinning claims about the effectiveness of public health interventions.

show abstract

“…We are in the process of evaluating the impact CICa has on reducing alcohol harm within the communities where it was rolled out. 7 We have learnt that CICa is a complex intervention to launch and embed into small communities, and have identified key barriers and facilitators which have affected the implementation, recruitment, training, and ongoing support of aHCs. It has become evident that the effective implementation of the aHC training, and integration of the role to deliver alcohol harm reduction activities into local plans is a process which needs time to bed in, facilitated by ongoing support from local commissioners.…”

Section: Initial Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This asset- and place- based community development approach 6 – called Communities in Charge of Alcohol (CICA) – aims to reduce alcohol harm in specific deprived areas across 10 local authorities. 7…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 In order to tackle the high social and economic cost of alcohol, estimated to be £1.3 bn per year or £500 per resident, 4 the uK city region of Greater Manchester (GM) implemented an innovative programme to reduce alcohol harm in September 2017. this asset-and placebased community development approach 6 -called Communities in Charge of Alcohol (CICa) -aims to reduce alcohol harm in specific deprived areas across 10 local authorities. 7 the CICa programme trains local volunteers within specific communities to become alcohol health champions (aHCs) -the first time to our knowledge Mobilising communities to address alcohol harm: an Alcohol Health Champion approach…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation