Introduction Process evaluations examining programme implementation are often conducted in conjunction with effectiveness studies. Their inclusion in studies with Aboriginal participants can give an understanding of programme delivery in Aboriginal community contexts. The Ironbark: Standing Strong and Tall programme was codesigned with Aboriginal communities and includes exercise and facilitated ‘yarning’ discussion about fall risk and prevention strategies. The programme pilot showed favourable outcomes and acceptability for Aboriginal people aged 45 years and over. The Ironbark: Standing Strong and Tall programme is now being compared with a ‘Healthy Community’ programme in a cluster randomised controlled trial within Aboriginal health and community services. An embedded process evaluation aims to explore relationships between participation and programme outcomes and the quality of programme implementation.
Methods and analysis The process evaluation will use a mixed methods design, guided by Indigenous research methodology. It will evaluate quantitative data (number of completed sessions, site coaching checklist tool, participant and facilitator questionnaire data and a participant habit formation scale), as well as qualitative data (open-ended responses from project and site staff and semistructured interviews using yarning with study participants and site managers). A programme logic model was developed to explain the intended inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes, which guided this process evaluation design.
Conclusion This process evaluation of a fall prevention programme for older Aboriginal people using a mixed methods design and data triangulation will allow for a comprehensive understanding of study findings. Multiple study sites allow for generalisability of findings and exploration of variation across sites.
Trial registration number ACTRN12619000349145.
- programme evaluationx
- older people
- health services
- process/impact evaluation
Data availability statement
There are no additional data in this protocol.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Twitter @rebeccaivers, @kathleenclapham
Contributors RM led the writing of this paper. Study investigators (CS, AT, A-MH, KC, TaM, KH, JG, KD, KR and RQI) had overall responsibility for the conception of this study with scientific input. The process evaluation working group and project officers (JC, RW, AS, TrM, CL, KB-B, AH, GS and MS) contributed expertise to the development of the process evaluation tools and programme logic model. All authors contributed to the writing of this paper and approved the final draft.
Funding This work was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council grant number (NMHRC Project grant No. 1143085).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.