Supporting patients using a digital self-management intervention for symptoms of fatigue, pain, and urgency/incontinence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a mixed methods process evaluation of trial facilitators

BACKGROUND: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a facilitator-supported digital programme (IBD-BOOST) for symptom management in Inflammatory Bowel Disease found no difference in disease-specific quality of life and symptom relief compared with controls. Process evaluation is necessary to inform the interpretation of trial outcomes. This study evaluated facilitator adherence to intervention delivery and facilitator perspectives on training, intervention delivery and supervision during the trial, and implementation. METHODS: A mixed-methods process-evaluation study nested within an RCT. A randomised sample of participant-facilitator in-programme messages during the intervention were assessed using a bespoke fidelity assessment framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nineteen facilitators pre and post intervention delivery and assessed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Facilitators adhered to the trial protocol for intervention delivery achieving high fidelity throughout. Qualitative interviews revealed facilitators valued the IBD-BOOST intervention and felt the training and on-going supervision equipped them well for the task. Facilitators expressed concerns regarding workload-related time constraints during the trial and cautioned that similar implementation challenges may arise if the intervention were delivered within routine clinical care. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation demonstrated that, although the overall trial outcomes were unsuccessful, this was not attributable to facilitator infidelity in intervention fidelity or a lack of enthusiasm for the intervention. Instead, other factors, including participant engagement, may have played a significant role in the limited effectiveness observed. Further investigation is needed to identify and address these contributing factors, which could include barriers to participant engagement or potential misalignment between the intervention design and the needs and expectations of its target population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-06-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350560
Primary Topic
Digital Mental Health Interventions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Supporting patients using a digital self-management intervention for symptoms of fatigue, pain, and urgency/incontinence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a mixed methods process evaluation of trial facilitators

Serena McGuinness, Vari Wileman, Stephanie J. C. Taylor, Wladyslawa; id_orcid 0000-0002-9889-1248 Czuber-Dochan et al.
PLoS ONE
Digital Mental Health Interventions
article

Supporting patients using a digital self-management intervention for symptoms of fatigue, pain, and urgency/incontinence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a mixed methods process evaluation of trial facilitators

Serena McGuinness, Vari Wileman, Stephanie J. C. Taylor, Wladyslawa; id_orcid 0000-0002-9889-1248 Czuber-Dochan, Rona; id_orcid 0000-0002-2927-3446 Moss-Morris, Laura Miller, Lesley Dibley, Christine Norton
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a facilitator-supported digital programme (IBD-BOOST) for symptom management in Inflammatory Bowel Disease found no difference in disease-specific quality of life and symptom relief compared with controls. Process evaluation is necessary to inform the interpretation of trial outcomes. This study evaluated facilitator adherence to intervention delivery and facilitator perspectives on training, intervention delivery and supervision during the trial, and implementation. METHODS: A mixed-methods process-evaluation study nested within an RCT. A randomised sample of participant-facilitator in-programme messages during the intervention were assessed using a bespoke fidelity assessment framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nineteen facilitators pre and post intervention delivery and assessed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Facilitators adhered to the trial protocol for intervention delivery achieving high fidelity throughout. Qualitative interviews revealed facilitators valued the IBD-BOOST intervention and felt the training and on-going supervision equipped them well for the task. Facilitators expressed concerns regarding workload-related time constraints during the trial and cautioned that similar implementation challenges may arise if the intervention were delivered within routine clinical care. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation demonstrated that, although the overall trial outcomes were unsuccessful, this was not attributable to facilitator infidelity in intervention fidelity or a lack of enthusiasm for the intervention. Instead, other factors, including participant engagement, may have played a significant role in the limited effectiveness observed. Further investigation is needed to identify and address these contributing factors, which could include barriers to participant engagement or potential misalignment between the intervention design and the needs and expectations of its target population.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(6)
Queen Mary University of London (GB), King's College London (GB), Florence Nightingale Foundation (GB), University of Greenwich (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Digital Mental Health Interventions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.