What's in it for me? A process evaluation of the implementation of a mobile phone-supported intervention after stroke in Uganda
- PMID: 31088411
- PMCID: PMC6518972
- DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6849-3
What's in it for me? A process evaluation of the implementation of a mobile phone-supported intervention after stroke in Uganda
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of stroke in Uganda is increasing. In stroke rehabilitation, information and communication technology has been shown to have potential in improving service delivery in high-income countries but there is limited knowledge of its use and impact in low-income countries. The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation process of a mobile phone-supported family-centred rehabilitation intervention and to gain knowledge on the mechanisms of impact as well as the contextual factors that might have affected the implementation process and its outcome.
Method: This was a single-case study design using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and the Medical Research Council guidance as frameworks. Quantitative process data was derived from 14 log books used by occupational therapists during the implementation. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 implementers in different professions, 12 months into the implementation, in order to obtain the primary data. Secondary data was derived from six semi-structured interviews conducted directly after pre-intervention workshops and 6 months later. The framework method was used in the data analysis.
Results: In 11 out of 14 cases, the clients were compliant with the intervention. Yet, challenges such as technical problems were reported. The target of conducting 16 phone calls for each client was achieved to 74%. Eight categories emerged from the qualitative analysis of the interviews including: 1) perceptions on facilitation, 2) using scientific and experience-based knowledge, 3) tailoring the intervention, 4) supportive working culture, 5) barriers to the service delivery, 6) implementers' interaction with the intervention, 7) perceptions on motivations and values, and 8) improving the model and enabling sustainability. Mechanisms contributing to the implementation of the intervention included engaged facilitators and motivated participants. Challenges in the client recruitment and poor information dissemination were some of the mechanisms impeding the implementation.
Conclusions: The intervention was partially delivered in accordance with the logic model for the project, where the implementation process was influenced by several barriers in the context such as technical setbacks. However, there were also several mediators in the process driving the project forward, including strong facilitation and motivated participants.
Keywords: Africa; ICT; Low-income; Occupational therapy; Process evaluation; SMS; Stroke; Tele medicine; Tele-rehabilitation.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The main project, the feasibility study with an RCT-design for the mobile phone based intervention, was approved by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (reg. HS703) and by Mulago hospital’s ethical board (date: 12/1–2011). Before data collection in the present study, the participants were given both oral and written information regarding the aim of the study, purpose of the interview, research methods as well as methods for ensuring confidentiality and informed written consent was obtained from all participants.
Consent for publication
The study have obtained written consent to publish from the participant to report individual data.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Figures




References
-
- World Health Organization. Uganda: WHO statistical profile [internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; Updated 2015. [Cited 2016 Sep 23]. Available from: http://www.who.int/gho/countries/uga.pdf?ua=1&ua=1.
-
- World Health Organization. Countries: Uganda: statistics [internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. [Cited 2016 Sep 23]. Available from: http://www.who.int/countries/uga/en.
-
- World Health Organization. Uganda: country health profile -noncommunicable diseases [internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. [Cited 2016 Dec 14]. Available from: http://www.who.int/nmh/countries/uga_en.pdf.
-
- Republic of Uganda-Ministry of Health. The second National Health Policy: promoting People’s health to enhance socio-economic development.[Internet] Kampala: Ministry of Health; July 2010 [cited 2016 Sep 24]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s18426en/s18426en.pdf.
-
- Government of Uganda. Health Sector Strategic Plan III 2010/11-2014/15 [Internet]. Kampala: Ministry of Health; 2010. [cited 2016 Sept 20]. Available from: http://www.health.go.ug/docs/HSSP_III_2010.pdf.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical