Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions

• Main Authors: Jemma Hawkins (Author), Kim Madden (Author), Adam Fletcher (Author), Luke Midgley (Author), Aimee Grant (Author), Gemma Cox (Author), Laurence Moore (Author), Rona Campbell (Author), Simon Murphy (Author), Chris Bonell (Author), James White (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2017-09-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12889-017-4695-8; 1471-2458
• Keywords: Intervention development; Public health; Co-production; Prototyping; Transdisciplinary action research; Drug prevention; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: BMC Public Health, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2017)

Abstract Background Existing guidance for developing public health interventions does not provide information for researchers about how to work with intervention providers to co-produce and prototype the content and delivery of new interventions prior to evaluation. The ASSIST + Frank study aimed to adapt an existing effective peer-led smoking prevention intervention (ASSIST), integrating new content from the UK drug education resource Talk to Frank ( www.talktofrank.com ) to co-produce two new school-based peer-led drug prevention interventions. A three-stage framework was tested to adapt and develop intervention content and delivery methods in collaboration with key stakeholders to facilitate implementation. Methods The three stages of the framework were: 1) Evidence review and stakeholder consultation; 2) Co-production; 3) Prototyping. During stage 1, six focus groups, 12 consultations, five interviews, and nine observations of intervention delivery were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g. Public Health Wales [PHW] ASSIST delivery team, teachers, school students, health professionals). During stage 2, an intervention development group consisting of members of the research team and the PHW ASSIST delivery team was established to adapt existing, and co-produce new, intervention activities. In stage 3, intervention training and content were iteratively prototyped using process data on fidelity and acceptability to key stakeholders. Stages 2 and 3 took the form of an action-research process involving a series of face-to-face meetings, email exchanges, observations, and training sessions. Results Utilising the three-stage framework, we co-produced and tested intervention content and delivery methods for the two interventions over a period of 18 months involving external partners. New and adapted intervention activities, as well as refinements in content, the format of delivery, timing and sequencing of activities, and training manuals resulted from this process. The involvement of intervention delivery staff, participants and teachers shaped the content and format of the interventions, as well as supporting rapid prototyping in context at the final stage. Conclusions This three-stage framework extends current guidance on intervention development by providing step-by-step instructions for co-producing and prototyping an intervention's content and delivery processes prior to piloting and formal evaluation. This framework enhances existing guidance and could be transferred to co-produce and prototype other public health interventions. Trial registration ISRCTN14415936 , registered retrospectively on 05 November 2014.