Page 130 - Demo

Chapter 5128The secondary sample included implementers who participated in the CoP. Organisation A had three implementers: one policymaker with affinity with implementation and two behavioural specialists with a background in psychology and special education. Organisation B had four implementers: two care staff workers, one policymaker, and one behavioural specialist. Organisations C and D each had one implementer. Both were policymakers who had affinity with topics concerning involuntary care. In all meetings, EB and NF were present to facilitate, lead discussions and share information about the NAF and implementation. The Ethics Review Board of Tilburg University (RP58.) approved the study protocol. All organisations were informed by phone about the study. They provided e-mail addresses of care staff working in selected care homes. Researchers sent detailed study information by e-mail to care staff, who signed the consent form integrated into the initial questionnaire. CoP participants received detailed written information, including the possibility to leave the study at any time. In the meetings they agreed to recording. Community of Practice with the ItFits-toolkit The CoP started in October 2021 and finished after six meetings in June 2022. All meetings were online due to Covid-19. The meeting structure was fixed, based on evaluations of a CoP with a more open agenda (Bisschops et al., 2023). EB brought in the ItFits toolkit as this was set up by experts in the field of implementation science.The start meeting (Figure 2) focused on discussing the purpose of the CoP. Furthermore, NF explained the purpose of the e-tool NAF. Participants exchanged prior implementation experiences. EB used the second meeting to explain phases in implementation processes (Wensing, et al., 2020) and social mechanisms based on Normalisation Process Theory (May et al., 2009). Participants followed the four Modules of the ItFits-toolkit. First, they identified hindering factors that could potentially occur during the implementation of the NAF (Module 1: Identify). Subsequently, they discussed their ideas regarding suitable implementation interventions (Module 2: Match). After that, EB explained the advantages of tailoring implementation interventions to the needs of organisations and care staff