Participatory Approach (aim 1) |
Reach |
R |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effectiveness |
E |
|
|
-
•
building relationships, connecting with and establishing trust with local community. Key attributes to enable this: non-judgemental, empathetic, ability to put child and family needs at the centre, ability to ‘come alongside’ the individual, enhanced listening skills.
|
|
Adoption (setting/context) |
A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I |
|
Implementation |
-
•
Qualitative (co-production) - on the whole, the group felt that the original intervention materials were appropriate, based on discussions during 5 workshops with only small alterations made, to the words or language used (simple non jargon, non ‘american’ e.g., remove soda), preferences for locally relevant photographs and and use of colours not associated with either city football team.
|
|
|
M N/A – will be adressed in a later mixed methods outcome paper |
|
Maintenance |
|
|
|
|
Inclusive recruitment (aim 1) |
Reach |
R |
|
|
|
|
-
•
Means of recruitment Type – printed leaflets, printed poster, website, social media, newspaper article (also publicised on newspaper Facebook page)
|
|
|
Effectiveness |
-
•
21% (n = 26) of 126 who enquired then signed up to the study with Intervention Group n = 14 Control Group n = 12.38%, n = 10 signed up via study website and 19%, n = 5 via face-to-face interaction at events. n = 2 newspaper articles (january 2017) prompted n = 16 and (May 2017) n = 9 enquiries about the study.
|
|
|
|
|
Adoption |
E N/A -will be addressed in a later mixed methods outcome paper |
|
|
A |
|
Implementation |
-
•
Number of participant Families and randomisation n = 26, % living in most deprived data zone in Scotland 61.5%a (n = 16), % one parent families 23% (n = 6), Average number of children living in household 2.0 (1–4)% Lead parent not in education or working38.5% (n = 10), % of children who attend childcare setting for at least 15 h per week 69.2% (n = 18)
|
|
|
I |
|
Maintenance |
-
•
Qualitative (co-production) no limits should be set for eligibility criteria, study website was co-created with group members, local imagery and simple language. ‘Dundee Family Health Study’ based on discussions during n = 5 workshops.
|
|
|
M N/A – will be addressed in a later, mixed methods, outcomes paper |
Feasibility of translating 4HS (aim 2) |
Reach |
R |
|
|
|
|
Effectiveness |
|
|
|
E N/A – will be addressed in a later, mixed methods, outcomes paper |
|
Adoption |
A N/A - will be addressed in a later, mixed methods, outcomes paper |
|
|
I |
|
Implementation |
-
•
Intervention group - Total number of contacts (sms, email, face to face, letter) = 726, Mean number of contacts per family 726/13 = 56 (33–80).
|
|
|
-
•
Control Group - Total number of contacts (sms, email, face to face, letter) = 371, Mean number of contacts per family 371/10 = 37 (22–62)
|
|
Maintenance |
|
|
|
M N/A– will be addressed in a later, mixed methods, outcomes paper |