Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:28:19.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Facilitators and barriers to adaptive implementation of the Meeting Centers Support Program (MCSP) in three European countries; the process evaluation within the MEETINGDEM study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2017

L.D. Van Mierlo
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
R. Chattat
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
S. Evans
Affiliation:
Association for Dementia Studies, University of Worcester, Henwick Grove, Worcester, UK
D. Brooker
Affiliation:
Association for Dementia Studies, University of Worcester, Henwick Grove, Worcester, UK
F.L. Saibene
Affiliation:
Santa Maria Nascente IRCCS Clinical Research Center, Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy
G. Gamberini
Affiliation:
Santa Maria Nascente IRCCS Clinical Research Center, Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy
E. Farina
Affiliation:
Santa Maria Nascente IRCCS Clinical Research Center, Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy
C. Scorolli
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
D. Szcześniak
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
K.M. Urbańska
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
J. Rymaszewska
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
R.M. Dröes*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
F.J.M. Meiland
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: R.M. Dröes, Department of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Center/GGZinGeest, Postbox 74077, 1070 BB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Phone: +31 207885454. Email: [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Background:

In the MEETINGDEM project, the Meeting Centers Support Program (MCSP) was adaptively implemented and evaluated in three European countries: Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom. The aim of this study was to investigate overall and country-specific facilitators and barriers to the implementation of MCSP in these European countries.

Methods:

A qualitative multiple case study design was used. Based on the theoretical model of adaptive implementation, a checklist was composed of potential facilitators and barriers to the implementation of MCSP. This checklist was administered among stakeholders involved in the implementation of MCSP to trace the experienced facilitators and barriers. Twenty-eight checklists were completed.

Results:

Main similarities between countries were related to the presence of suitable staff, management, and a project manager, and the fact that the MCSP is attuned to needs and wishes of people with dementia and informal caregivers. Main differences between countries were related to: communication with potential referrers, setting up an inter-organizational collaboration network, receiving support of national organizations, having clear discharge criteria for the MCSP and continuous PR in the region.

Conclusion:

The results of this study provide insight into generic and country specific factors that can influence the implementation of MCSP in different European countries. This study informs further implementation and dissemination of MCSP in Europe and may also serve as an example for the dissemination and implementation of other effective psychosocial support interventions for people with dementia and their informal caregivers across and beyond Europe.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbour, R. S. (1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in Health Services Research. Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 4, 3943.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., Van Weert, J. C., Lakerveld, J. and Dröes, R. M. (2015). The art of successful implementation of psychosocial interventions in residential dementia care: a systematic review of the literature based on the RE-AIM framework.Google Scholar
Brodaty, H., Green, A. and Koschera, A. (2003). Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for caregivers of people with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 51, 657664.Google Scholar
Dopp, C. M., Graff, M. J., Rikkert, M. G. M. O., Nijhuis van der Sanden, M. W. G. and Vernooij-Dassen, M. J. F. J. (2013). Determinants for the effectiveness of implementing an occupational therapy intervention in routine dementia care. Implementation Science, 8, 131.Google Scholar
Dröes, R. M. et al. (2017). Comparison of the adaptive implementation and evaluation of the Meeting Centers Support Program for people with dementia and their family carers in Europe; study protocol of the MEETINGDEM project. BioMed Central Geriatrics, 17, 79.Google Scholar
Dröes, R. M., Breebaart, E., Meiland, F. J. M., Van Tilburg, W. and Mellenbergh, G. J. (2004a). Effect of meeting centers support program on feeling of competence of family caregivers and delay of institutionalization of people with dementia. Aging & Mental Health, 8, 201211.Google Scholar
Dröes, R. M., Breebaart, E., Van Tilburg, W. and Mellenbergh, G. J. (2000). The effect of integrated family support versus day care only on behavior and mood of patients with dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 12, 99116.Google Scholar
Dröes, R. M., Meiland, F. J. M., De Lange, J., Vernooij-Dassen, M. and Van Tilburg, W. (2003). The meeting centers support program; an effective way of supporting people with dementia who live at home and their carers. Dementia. The International Journal of Social Research and Practice, 2, 421438.Google Scholar
Dröes, R. M., Meiland, F. J. M., Schmitz, M. and Van Tilburg, W. (2004b). Effect of combined support for people with dementia and carers versus regular day care on behavior and mood of persons with dementia: results from a multi-center implementation study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 112.Google Scholar
Dröes, R. M., Meiland, F. J. M., Schmitz, M. and Van Tilburg, W. (2011). An evaluation of the meeting centers support program among persons with dementia and their carers. Nonpharmacological Therapies in Dementia, 2, 1939.Google Scholar
Glasgow, R. E., McKay, H. G., Piette, J. D. and Reynolds, K. D. (2001). The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management? Patient Education and Counseling, 44, 119127.Google Scholar
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M. and Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 13221327.Google Scholar
Grol, R. and Wensing, M. (2004). What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. The Medical Journal of Australia, 180, S57–S60.Google Scholar
Grol, R., Wensing, M. and Eccles, M. (2005). Improving Patient Care; The Implementation of Change in Clinical Practice. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lawrence, V., Fossey, J., Ballard, C., Moniz-Cook, E. and Murray, J. (2012). Improving quality of life for people with dementia in care homes: making psychosocial interventions work. British Journal of Psychiatry, 201, 344351.Google Scholar
Mangiaracina, F. et al. (2017). Not re-inventing the wheel: the adaptive implementation of the meeting centres support programme in four European countries. Aging and Mental Health, 21, 4048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meiland, F. J. M., Dröes, R. M., De Lange, J. and Vernooij-Dassen, M. (2004). Development of a theoretical model for tracing facilitators and barriers in adaptive implementation of innovative practices in dementia care. Archives of Geriatrics and Gerontology, 9, 279290.Google Scholar
Meiland, F. J. M., Dröes, R. M., De Lange, J. and Vernooij-Dassen, M. (2005). Facilitators and barriers in the implementation of the meeting centers model for people with dementia and their carers. Health Policy, 71, 243253.Google Scholar
Minkman, M. M., Ligthart, S. A. and Huijsman, R. (2009). Integrated dementia care in The Netherlands: a multiple case study of case management programs. Health and Social Care in the Community, 17, 485494.Google Scholar
Moniz-Cook, E., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Woods, B. and Orrell, M. (2011). Psychosocial interventions in dementia care research: the INTERDEM manifesto. Aging & Mental Health, 15, 283290.Google Scholar
Olazarán, J. et al. (2010). Nonpharmacological therapies in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of efficacy. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 30, 161178.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation. 5th edn. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Smits, C.H., de Lange, J., Dröes, R.M., Meiland, F.J.M., Vernooij-Dassen, M. and Pot, A.M. (2007). Effects of combined intervention programs for people with dementia living at home and their caregivers: a systematic review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 11811193.Google Scholar
Van Haeften-van Dijk, A. M., Meiland, F. J. M., Van Mierlo, L. D. and Droës, R. M. (2015). Transforming nursing home-based day care for people with dementia into socially integrated community day care: process analysis of the transition of six day care centres. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52, 13101322.Google Scholar
Van Mierlo, L. D., Meiland, F. J., Van Hout, H. P. J. and Dröes, R. M. (2014). Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management. BMC Geriatrics, 14, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernooij-Dassen, M. and Moniz-Cook, E. (2014). Raising the standard of applied dementia care research: addressing the implementation error. Aging & Mental Health, 12, 16.Google Scholar