https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:52475 Wed 28 Feb 2024 15:33:43 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:45114 n = 17) presentation of program materials with surveys after each section. In-depth individual semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were then conducted. All participants reported increased knowledge and confidence in adherence to the MEDI, with the majority preferring a booklet format (70%) and group delivery (58%). Three themes emerged from interviews—1. barriers (complexity, perceived cost and food preferences), 2. additional support and 3. individualisation of materials. Program materials were modified accordingly. Phase 2 was a 2-week trial of the modified program (n = 15). Participants received a group counselling session, program manual and food hamper. Adherence to the MEDI was measured by the Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS). All participants increased their adherence after the 2-week trial, from a mean score of 5.4 ± 2.4 (low adherence) to a mean score of 9.6 ± 2.0 (moderate to high adherence). All found that text message support helped achieve their goals and were confident to continue the dietary change]]> Wed 26 Oct 2022 13:03:08 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:45085 n = 6), specialist dietitians (n = 6) and an IKT research team (n = 8) participated in a 4-phase co-design process. Phase 1: the IKT team developed the research questions, and identified essential program elements and workshop strategies for effective co-design. Phase 2: Participant co-design workshops used persona and journey mapping to create user profiles to identify barriers and essential program elements. Phase 3: The IKT team mapped Phase 2 data to the TIDieR checklist and developed the intervention prototype. Phase 4: Co-design workshops were conducted to refine the prototype for trial. Rigorous IKT co-design fundamentally influenced intervention development. Modifications to the protocol based on participant input included ensuring that all resources were accessible to people with aphasia, an additional support framework and resources specific to outcome of stroke. The feasibility and safety of this intervention is currently being pilot tested (randomised controlled trial; 2019/ETH11533, ACTRN12620000189921).]]> Wed 26 Oct 2022 12:25:58 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:45047 n = 31 stroke survivors, n = 12 caregivers) were analysed using the Framework approach. Results: Observation participants differed in functional ability whereas stroke survivor interviewees were all ambulant. Six themes related to sedentary behaviour after stroke were generated: (1) sedentary behaviour levels and patterns after stroke; (2) the physical and social environment in the stroke service and in the home; (3) standing and movement capability after stroke; (4) emotion and motivation after stroke; (5) caregivers’ influence on, and role in influencing stroke survivors’ sedentary behaviour; and (6) intervening to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke. Capability, opportunity and motivation were influenced by the impact of the stroke and caregivers’ inclination to support sedentary behaviour reduction. Stroke survivors reported being more sedentary than they were pre-stroke due to impaired balance and co-ordination, increased fatigue, and reduced confidence in mobilising. Caregivers inclination to support stroke survivors to reduce sedentary behaviour depended on factors including their willingness to withdraw from the caregiver role, and their perception of whether the stroke survivor would act on their encouragement. Conclusions: Many stroke survivors indicate being open to reducing sedentary behaviour, with appropriate support from stroke service staff and caregivers. The findings from this study have contributed to an intervention development process using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) approach to develop strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke.]]> Wed 26 Oct 2022 11:37:18 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:14799 Wed 11 Apr 2018 13:55:47 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:20631 Wed 11 Apr 2018 10:15:14 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:39872 a deliberate, iterative and data-driven process to improve a health intervention and/or its implementation to meet stakeholder-defined public health impacts within resource constraints. This study aimed to identify frameworks used to optimise the impact of health interventions and/or their implementation, and characterise the key concepts, steps or processes of identified frameworks. Methods: A scoping review of MEDLINE, CINAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source databases was undertaken. Two reviewers independently coded the key concepts, steps or processes involved in each frameworks, and identified if it was a framework aimed to optimise interventions or their implementation. Two review authors then identified the common steps across included frameworks. Results: Twenty optimisation frameworks were identified. Eight frameworks were for optimising interventions, 11 for optimising implementation and one covered both intervention and implementation optimisation. The mean number of steps within the frameworks was six (range 3–9). Almost half (n = 8) could be classified as both linear and cyclic frameworks, indicating that some steps may occur multiple times in a single framework. Two meta- frameworks are proposed, one for intervention optimisation and one for implementation strategy optimisation. Steps for intervention optimisation are: Problem identification; Preparation; Theoretical/Literature base; Pilot/ Feasibility testing; Optimisation; Evaluation; and Long-term implementation. Steps for implementation strategy optimisation are: Problem identification; Collaborate; Plan/design; Pilot; Do/change; Study/evaluate/check; Act; Sustain/endure; and Disseminate/extend. Conclusions: This review provides a useful summary of the common steps followed to optimise a public health intervention or its implementation according to established frameworks. Further opportunities to study and/or validate such frameworks and their impact on improving outcomes exist.]]> Tue 28 Jun 2022 14:33:06 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:37242 Thu 28 Oct 2021 12:35:54 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:43292 Thu 15 Sep 2022 12:44:25 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:54578 Sat 02 Mar 2024 10:02:18 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:49170 Fri 05 May 2023 15:37:23 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:36382 Fri 03 Apr 2020 15:56:33 AEDT ]]>