Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableAssociations between self-efficacy and sedentary behaviour: a meta-analysis(TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD, 2021-03-04)Objective: The study sought to synthesize research on the relationship between time spent engaged in sedentary behaviours (SB) and self-efficacy. Analyses investigated whether such associations are moderated by age, conceptualization of self-efficacy, conceptualization of SB, and/or SB measurement.Design and Main Outcome Measures: The review was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42018086899). Studies including associations between self-efficacy and SB were identified through a systematic search of six databases. Inclusion criteria were met by k = 26 original studies.Results: A random effect meta-analysis showed that higher levels of self-efficacy were associated with lower levels of SB (r = -.158, 95% CI [-.220, -.094]). Moderator analyses indicated that associations between self-efficacy and SB may be similar in strength across age groups, the conceptualizations of self-efficacy or SB and SB measurements.Conclusion: The findings provide preliminary guidance for future interventions targeting reduction of SB, although more longitudinal research is needed to draw causal inferences.
-
ItemWhat Works in Violence Prevention Among Young People?: A Systematic Review of Reviews(SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2022-12-01)Violence prevention programs aim to raise awareness, change attitudes, normative beliefs, motivation, and behavioral responses. Many programs have been developed and evaluated, and optimistic claims about effectiveness made. Yet comprehensive guidance on program design, implementation, and evaluation is limited. The aim of this study was to provide an up-to-date review of evidence on what works for whom. A systematic search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, and Sociology Collection ProQuest identified 40 reviews and meta-analyses reporting on the effectiveness of violence prevention programs among young people (age 15–30) in educational institutions, published before October 2018. These included reviews of programs designed to reduce (i) bullying, (ii) dating and relationship violence, (iii) sexual assault, and (iv) antisocial behavior. Only evaluations that reported on behavioral outcomes such as perpetration, victimization, and bystander behavior were included. The reviewed evaluations reported on programs that were mainly implemented in high-income countries in Europe and North America. The majority found small effects on violence reduction and victimization and increases in self-reported bystander behavior. Our findings expose critical gaps in evaluation research in this area and provide recommendations on how to optimize the effectiveness of future programs.
-
ItemThe value of social practice theory for implementation science: learning from a theory-based mixed methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial(BMC, 2020-07-06)BACKGROUND: Although there is trial evidence that complex interventions are effective for the self-management of heart failure, little evidence supports their effectiveness in routine practice. We used Social Practice Theory to guide a Type 1 Hybrid Trial: a mixed methods process evaluation of a complex intervention for heart failure. The objective of this paper is to explore the value of Social Practice Theory for implementation science. METHODS: Social Practice Theory informed a mixed methods process evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of a 12 week home-based intervention to optimise self-care support for people with heart failure and their caregivers - Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF). Interviews were conducted with 19 people with heart failure and 17 caregivers at 4 months and 12 months after recruitment into the trial. Cases were constructed at the level of the individual, couple, facilitator and centre; and included multi-modal process and outcome data. Evaluative coding and subsequent within- and cross-case analyses enabled the development of a typology of relationships linking fidelity of intervention delivery and tailoring of content to individual needs and concerns. Social Practice Theory was used to interrogate the relationships between elements of the intervention and their implementation. RESULTS: Of 216 trial participants, 107 were randomised to the intervention (REACH-HF plus usual care). The intervention was most effective when fidelity was high and delivery was tailored to the individual's needs, but less effective when both tailoring and fidelity were low. Theory-based analysis enabled us to model complex relationships between intervention elements (competencies, materials and meanings) and social context. The findings illustrate how intervention fidelity and tailoring are contextual and how the effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention depended on both optimal alignment and implementation of these elements. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates the utility of theory-based analysis which integrates data from multiple sources to highlight contexts and circumstances in which interventions work best. Social Practice Theory provides a framework for guiding and analysing the processes by which a complex intervention is evaluated in a clinical trial, and has the potential to guide context-specific implementation strategies for clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, IISRCTN86234930 . Registered 13th November 2014.
-
ItemUnderstanding implementation success: protocol for an in-depth, mixed-methods process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial testing methods to improve detection of Lynch syndrome in Australian hospitals(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2020-01-01)INTRODUCTION: In multisite intervention trials, implementation success often varies widely across settings. Process evaluations are crucial to interpreting trial outcomes and understanding contextual factors and causal chains necessary for successful implementation. Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer predisposition conferring an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancer types. Despite systematic screening protocols to identify Lynch syndrome, the condition remains largely underdiagnosed. The Hide and Seek Project ('HaSP') is a cluster randomised controlled trial determining the effectiveness of two approaches to improving Lynch syndrome detection at eight Australian hospital networks. To enhance widespread implementation of optimal Lynch syndrome identification, there is a need to understand not only what works, but also why, in what contexts, and at what costs. Here we describe an in-depth investigation of factors influencing successful implementation of procedures evaluated in the HaSP trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods, theory-driven process evaluation will be undertaken in parallel to the HaSP trial. Data will include: interviews of Implementation Leads and Lynch syndrome stakeholders, pre-post implementation questionnaires, audio analysis of meetings and focus groups, observation of multidisciplinary team meetings, fidelity checklists and project log analysis. Results will be triangulated and coded, drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Proctor's implementation outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Use of a theory-based process evaluation will enhance interpretation and generalisability of HaSP trial findings, and contribute to the implementation research field by furthering understanding of the conditions necessary for implementation success. Ethical approval has been granted and results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. At trial completion, key findings will be fed back to sites to enable refinement of intervention strategies, both in the context of Lynch syndrome and for the possible generalisability of intervention components in other genetic and broader clinical specialties. HASP TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Identifier: ACTRN12618001072202). Registered 27 June 2018. http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618001072202.aspx.