Hemşirelikte Deneysel Araştırmalarda Süreç Değerlendirme

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4, 527 - 540, 15.10.2022

Hazal Özdemir Koyu , Ebru Kılıçarslan Törüner

https://doi.org/10.46483/deuhfed.992946

Öz

Süreç değerlendirme, bir girişimin uygulanmasını en üst düzeye çıkarmak amacıyla; uygulanan girişimin başarılı ve geliştirilmesi gereken yönlerini etkileyen mekanizmaların, süreçlerin ve uygulama stratejilerinin geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayan bir değerlendirmedir. Süreç değerlendirme, girişimin tüm yönlerini, girişimi etkileyen etki mekanizmalarını ve girişimin bağlamını inceleyerek hemşirelik alanındaki çok boyutlu müdahalelerin yeterli doğruluk, doz ve kalitede sunulmasını sağlamaktadır. Böylece, hemşirelik araştırmalarında uygulanan girişimlerin etkinliği süreç değerlendirme kullanılarak değerlendirilebilir. Son yıllarda hemşirelik alanında iyi tasarlanmış, sonuç değerlendirme çalışmaları olarak da bilinen, deneysel araştırmalar literatürde yer almasına rağmen süreç değerlendirmeye yönelik çalışmaların sınırlı olduğu görülmektedir. Bu derleme, süreç değerlendirme kavramı, süreç değerlendirmenin temel bileşenleri, aşamalarına yönelik bakış açısı kazandırmak ve hemşirelik araştırmalarında süreç değerlendirmenin önemini vurgulamak amacıyla planlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Süreç değerlendirme, Pilot çalışma, Randomize kontrollü çalışma, Hemşirelik araştırması

Process Evaluation in Experimental Research in Nursing

Öz

Process evaluation is an evaluation that contributes to the development of mechanisms, processes and implementation strategies that affect the success of the intervention and the aspects that need improvement in order to maximize the implementation of an intervention. Process evaluation ensures that multidimensional interventions in the field of nursing are presented with sufficient accuracy, dose and quality by examining all aspects of the intervention, the mechanisms of action that affect the intervention, and the context of the intervention. Thus, it contributes to the formation of scientific knowledge and evidence for the development of nursing practices and care, with strategies to improve the effectiveness of the intervention applied in nursing research. Although well designed experimental studies, also known as outcome evaluation studies, have been included in the literature in recent years, it is seen that studies on process evaluation are limited. This review is planned to provide perspective on the concept of process evaluation, the basic components and stages of process evaluation, and to emphasize the importance of process evaluation in nursing research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Process evaluation, Feasibility study, Randomized controlled study, Nursing research

Kaynakça

• Corder, K., Sharp, S. J., Jong, S. T., Foubister, C., Brown, H. E., Wells, E. K., ... & van Sluijs, E. M. (2020). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among UK adolescents: A cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS medicine, 17(7), e1003210.
• Djulbegovic, B., Guyatt, G. H. (2017). Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. The Lancet, 390(10092):415-23.
• Fisher, J., Nguyen, T., Tran, T. D., Tran, H., Tran, T., Luchters, S.,…Ha, T. (2019). Protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial of the learning club intervention for women's health, and infant's health and development in rural Vietnam. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1):511.
• Flemming, K., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Cargo, M. ve Noyes, J. (2018). Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series—paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 97:79-85.
• French, C., Pinnock, H., Forbes, G., Skene, I. ve Taylor SJ. (2020). Process evaluation within pragmatic randomised controlled trials: what is it, why is it done, and can we find it? a systematic review. Trials, 21(1):1-16.
• Hariton, E., Locascio, J. J. (2018). Randomised controlled trials- the gold standard for effectiveness research. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 125(13):1716.
• Harris, K., Kneale, D., Lasserson, T.J., McDonald, V. M., Grigg J. ve Thomas, J. (2019). School‐based self‐management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
• Hawkins, J., Charles, J. M., Edwards, M., Hallingberg, B., McConnon, L., Edwards, R. T., ... Moore, G. (2019). Acceptability and feasibility of implementing accelorometry-based activity monitors and a linked web portal in an exercise referral scheme: feasibility randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), e12374..
• Heerman, W. J., Sommer, E. C., Qi, A., Burgess, L. E., Mitchell, S. J., Samuels, L. R., ... Barkin, S. L. (2020). Evaluating dose delivered of a behavioral intervention for childhood obesity prevention: a secondary analysis. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1-11.
• Hulscher, M., Wensing, M. (2020). Process evaluation of implementation strategies. In: Wensing M, Grol R, Grimshaw J, editors. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care. 3th edition.
• Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 369-385.
• Jong, S. T., Brown, H. E., Croxson, C. H., Wilkinson, P., Corder, K. L., van Sluijs, E. M. (2018). GoActive: a protocol for the mixed methods process evaluation of a school-based physical activity promotion programme for 13–14year old adolescents. Trials, 19(1), 1-11.
• Kettner, P.M., Moroney, R.M,, Martin, L. L. (2017). Designing and managing programs: an effectivenessbased approach. 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 265-274.
• Khan, K., Hollis, C., Hall, C. L., Davies, E. B., Mataix-Cols, D., Andrén, P., ... Glazebrook, C. (2020). Protocol for the Process Evaluation of the Online Remote Behavioural Intervention for Tics (ORBIT) randomized controlled trial for children and young people. Trials, 21(1), 1-10.
• Linnan, L., Steckler, A. (2002). Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 12-16.
• Malterud, K., Aamland, A., & Iden, K. R. (2018). Small-scale implementation with pragmatic process evaluation: a model developed in primary health care. BMC Family Practice, 19(1), 1-10.
• Masterson-Algar, P., Burton, C. R., & Rycroft-Malone, J. (2018). The generation of consensus guidelines for carrying out process evaluations in rehabilitation research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1-11.
• May, C. R., Cummings, A., Girling, M., Bracher, M., Mair, F. S., May, C. M., ... Finch, T. (2018). Using normalization process theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 13(1), 1-27.
• Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., ... Baird, J. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350.
• Morrow, A., Tucker, K. M., Shaw, T. J., Parkinson, B., Abraham, C., Wolfenden, L., & Taylor, N. (2020). Understanding implementation success: protocol for an in-depth, mixed-methods process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial testing methods to improve detection of Lynch syndrome in Australian hospitals. BMJ Open, 10(6), e033552.
• Neil-Sztramko, S. E., Smith-Turchyn, J., Richardson, J. ve Dobbins, M. (2019). A mobility-focused knowledge translation randomized controlled trial to improve physical activity: process evaluation of the Move4Age study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6), e13965.
• Noyes, J., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Flemming, H.A., Harden, A. ve Harris, J. (2019b). Qualitatitve evidence. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.1). 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 525-528.
• Noyes, J., Booth, A., Moore, G., Flemming, K., Tunçalp, Ö. ve Shakibazadeh, E. (2019a).Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health, 4 (Suppl 1):e000893.
• Satherley, R. M., Green, J., Sevdalis, N., Newham, J. J., Elsherbiny, M., Forman, J., ... Lingam, R. (2019). The children and young People’s health partnership Evelina London model of care: process evaluation protocol. BMJ Open, 9(8), e027302.
• Schulz, K., & Grimes, D. A. (2018). Essential concepts in clinical research: randomised controlled trials and observational epidemiology. Elsevier Health Sciences.
• Scott, S. D., Rotter, T., Flynn, R., Brooks, H. M., Plesuk, T., Bannar-Martin, K. H., ... Hartling, L. (2019). Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 1-10.
• Siddiqui, N., Gorard, S., See, B. H. (2018). The importance of process evaluation for randomised control trials in education. Educational Research, 60(3), 357-370.
• Simon, J. D., Schepers, S. A., Grootenhuis, M. A., Mensink, M., Huitema, A. D., Tissing, W. J., … Michiels, E. (2021). Reducing pain in children with cancer at home: a feasibility study of the KLIK pain monitor app. Supportive Care in Cancer, 29(12), 7617-7626.
• Van de Glind, I., Bunn, C., Gray, C. M., Hunt, K., Andersen, E., Jelsma, J., ... Wyke, S. (2017). The intervention process in the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) trial: a mixed method protocol for evaluation. Trials, 18(1), 1-14.
• Webb, J., Peel, J., Fife-Schaw, C., Ogden, J. (2019). A mixed methods process evaluation of a print-based intervention supported by internet tools to improve physical activity in UK cancer survivors. Public Health, 175, 19-27.
• Zarrett, N., Abraczinskas, M., Cook, B. S., Wilson, D., Roberts, A. (2020). Formative process evaluation of the “connect” physical activity feasibility trial for adolescents. Clinical Medicine Insights: Pediatrics, 14, 1179556520918902.