Multi-level barriers and facilitators to implementing a parenting intervention in prison, perceptions from deliverers and responsible managers: a mixed-methods study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Children of incarcerated parents run a high risk of poor health and own delinquency and positive parenting is vital for their healthy development. Internationally, parenting interventions for incarcerated parents suggest impacts on parenting and child behaviour outcomes. The intervention For Our Children’s Sake (FOCS), was developed for incarcerated parents in Sweden and evaluated in a controlled trial with a parallel process evaluation during 2019–2021. This study constitutes part of the process evaluation and aims to describe barriers and facilitators for the implementation of FOCS, and how the intervention targets parents’ needs, as perceived by delivering group leaders and responsible correctional inspectors.

Methods

In this mixed-methods study, group leaders (n = 23) and correctional inspectors (n = 12) in both intervention and control group of the FOCS trial responded to a quantitative questionnaire regarding factors of importance for intervention implementation. Group leaders (n = 12) and correctional inspectors (n = 6) in the intervention group also participated in qualitative interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and comparison of means. Qualitative data were analysed inductively using qualitative content analysis.

Results

A synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative results showed that the topic of parenting and child issues in general was perceived as highly important to work with in prison, and FOCS to be an important programme in specific. At the same time, the implementation of FOCS was perceived as reliant on the individual engagement of group leaders and correctional inspectors and implementation was described as a struggle due to the scarce resources that were allowed for FOCS. Thus, additional resources and support from the Prison and Probation Service’s management were called for to facilitate implementation of FOCS, and to make it an automatic part of prison activities.

Conclusion

This study showed that there was high engagement among deliverers and managers for working with parenting in prison, where the need among parents has been described as great. Additional resources and support within the overall Prison and Probation Service, is vital to facilitate implementation of FOCS and make it sustainable within the prisons. The findings can be used to refine an implementations structure for similar interventions in the prison or similar settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-022-00782-z.

Related collections

Most cited references 31

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Laura Damschroder, David Aron, Rosalind E Keith … (2009)

Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

0 comments Cited 2984 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

Graham Moore, Suzanne Audrey, Mary Barker … (2015)

Process evaluation is an essential part of designing and testing complex interventions. New MRC guidance provides a framework for conducting and reporting process evaluation studies

0 comments Cited 1449 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry.

Janice Morse (2015)

Criteria for determining the trustworthiness of qualitative research were introduced by Guba and Lincoln in the 1980s when they replaced terminology for achieving rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability with dependability, credibility, and transferability. Strategies for achieving trustworthiness were also introduced. This landmark contribution to qualitative research remains in use today, with only minor modifications in format. Despite the significance of this contribution over the past four decades, the strategies recommended to achieve trustworthiness have not been critically examined. Recommendations for where, why, and how to use these strategies have not been developed, and how well they achieve their intended goal has not been examined. We do not know, for example, what impact these strategies have on the completed research. In this article, I critique these strategies. I recommend that qualitative researchers return to the terminology of social sciences, using rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability. I then make recommendations for the appropriate use of the strategies recommended to achieve rigor: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and thick, rich description; inter-rater reliability, negative case analysis; peer review or debriefing; clarifying researcher bias; member checking; external audits; and triangulation.

0 comments Cited 503 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Åsa Norman: asa.norman@ki.se

Simon Swahnström: simon.swahnstrom@stud.ki.se

Natalia Ulfsdotter Karlström: natalia.karlstrom@stud.ki.se

Pia Enebrink: pia.enebrink@ki.se

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Psychol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Psychol

Title: BMC Psychology

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 2050-7283

Publication date (Electronic): 24 March 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 24 March 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 10

Electronic Location Identifier: 79

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.4714.6, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0626, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, , Karolinska Institutet, ; 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden

[2 ]GRID grid.4714.6, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0626, Department of Global Public Health, , Karolinska Institutet, ; 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden

[3 ]GRID grid.10548.38, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9377, Department of Psychology, , Stockholm University, ; 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

Article

Publisher ID: 782

DOI: 10.1186/s40359-022-00782-z

PMC ID: 8943991

PubMed ID: 35331337

SO-VID: c3dce4b0-0655-4f76-a6da-289f497d7e47

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 10 May 2021

Date accepted : 11 March 2022

Funding

Funded by: Solstickan Foundation

Funded by: Sven Jerring Foundation

Funded by: Clas Groschinsky Memorial Foundation

Funded by: Karolinska Institute

Open Access :

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute.

Custom metadata

Keywords: criminal,child,children of incarcerated parents,child delinquency,cfir,correctional services,crime prevention,disadvantaged children,implementation,incarceration,sweden

Data availability:

Keywords: criminal, child, children of incarcerated parents, child delinquency, cfir, correctional services, crime prevention, disadvantaged children, implementation, incarceration, sweden

Multi-level barriers and facilitators to implementing a parenting intervention in prison, perceptions from deliverers and responsible managers: a mixed-methods study

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Emirati Journal of Policing and Security Studies

Most cited references 31

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance

Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 162

Cited by 4

Most referenced authors 676