Process evaluation of a primary healthcare validation study of a culturally adapted depression screening tool for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: study protocol

Abstract

IntroductionProcess evaluations are conducted alongside research projects to identify the context, impact and consequences of research, determine whether it was conducted per protocol and to understand how, why and for whom an intervention is effective. We present a process evaluation protocol for the Getting it Right research project, which aims to determine validity of a culturally adapted depression screening tool for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In this process evaluation, we aim to: (1) explore the context, impact and consequences of conducting Getting It Right, (2) explore primary healthcare staff and community representatives’ experiences with the research project, (3) determine if it was conducted per protocol and (4) explore experiences with the depression screening tool, including perceptions about how it could be implemented into practice (if found to be valid). We also describe the partnerships established to conduct this process evaluation and how the national Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research is met.Methods and analysisRealist and grounded theory approaches are used. Qualitative data include semistructured interviews with primary healthcare staff and community representatives involved with Getting it Right. Iterative data collection and analysis will inform a coding framework. Interviews will continue until saturation of themes is reached, or all participants are considered. Data will be triangulated against administrative data and patient feedback. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group guides this research. Researchers will be blinded from validation data outcomes for as long as is feasible.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee, Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales and six state ethics committees have approved this research. Findings will be submitted to academic journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration number ACTRN12614000705684.

What are the resourcing requirements for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care research project?

“…The research project 6 and process evaluation methods 8 have been described previously. In brief, the coordinating staff member of the research project at each participating service approached staff and community members (purposive identification) to invite them to complete qualitative semistructured grounded theory 9 interviews about the research project with the lead researcher (SF) between November 2016 and June 2017 (after the research project was complete and before results were available).…”

“…We acknowledge the cultural diversity of Australia's Indigenous First Peoples and that they do not represent a homogenous group. 4 This process evaluation was conceived, designed and conducted according to the Values and ethics guideline 4 , received ethical approvals (lead ethics: Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council [1044/14], with details in the protocol) 8 and was approved by participating services.…”

Process evaluation of the Getting it Right study and acceptability and feasibility of screening for depression with the aPHQ-9

“…The methods of Getting it Right [11] and the associated process evaluation [21] have been described previously in published protocols.…”

Fall prevention in primary care using chronic disease management plans: A process evaluation of provider and consumer perspectives

“…Once this is understood, the feasibility, acceptability and applicability of an intervention can be established prior to scaling it up further (Farnbach et al, 2017;May, Mair, Dowrick & Finch, 2007). This includes the impact of the intervention, and how, why and for whom it is effective, as well as any unintentional outcomes.…”

“…This includes the impact of the intervention, and how, why and for whom it is effective, as well as any unintentional outcomes. Once this is understood, the feasibility, acceptability and applicability of an intervention can be established prior to scaling it up further (Farnbach et al, 2017;May, Mair, Dowrick & Finch, 2007). Process evaluations are distinct from quality assurance projects which are concerned with monitoring or improving the quality or safety of established services and to determine patient satisfaction and if improvements can be made (NH&MRC, 2014).…”