Page 132 - Demo

Chapter 5130(Module 3: Design), and introduced participants to recommendations for specifying these interventions (Proctor, et al., 2013). In the interlude between two CoP meetings, participants utilised this information to tailor their interventions. CoP participants repeated this process for three consecutive implementation interventions. They presented their tailored interventions in the CoP before executing these in their organisations. Following the execution, they reflected on the process (Module 4: Apply and review) in the subsequent CoP meeting. Care staff outcomesLevel of implementation of the NAF was measured with the Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire (Finch et al., 2018; Rapley et al., 2018). The NoMAD is a self-report questionnaire containing 20 items addressing social mechanisms involved in implementation processes as conceptualised by Normalisation Process Theory (Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action, and Reflexive Monitoring). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-scale, with 1= completely disagree and 5= completely agree. The internal consistency of the Dutch translated version is good for the total score (Cronbach%u2019s alpha .85) and ranges from questionable to acceptable for the subscales (.62 %u2264 alpha %u2264 .75) (Vis et al., 2019). We simplified the Dutch NoMAD to match terminology of care staff working in intellectual disability care. Care staff provided suggestions for each item. Subsequently, suggestions were discussed among the first, fourth, and fifth author to ensure the content of the item remained consistent. Final adaptations were then approved by care staff. Internal consistency of this adapted Dutch NoMAD was good (Cronbach%u2019s alpha .87) for the total score. For three subscales, the internal consistency was also good (Cognitive Participation .89, Collective Action .76, and Reflexive Monitoring .79). The Coherence subscale had unacceptable internal consistency (.47) and was excluded.Awareness of considering clients%u2019 perspective on involuntary care was measured among care staff with a self-constructed questionnaire %u2018Effect measurement NAF%u2019, which focused on care staff%u2019s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour concerning four %u2018involuntary care%u2019 topics: clients%u2019 behaviour, clients%u2019 resistance, clients%u2019 perception, and clients%u2019 perspective. Scale