Page 135 - Demo

Community of Practice as implementation strategy1335the tailored descriptions of three implementation interventions for each organisation, coupled with the explanations participants provided during CoP discussions. The tailored interventions were compiled in Table 3. A chronological description of the development of implementation plans in the CoP, based on the structure of the ItFits toolkit, was presented to CoP participants for a member check ensuring that their perspectives and experiences were accurately represented. ResultsEffect of the CoPLevel of implementation On three subscales of the NoMAD, care staff (n = 54) scored between neutral and slightly agree at TP-0 in both the experimental (implementation with CoP) as the control condition (IAU) (Table 2). On the subscale Cognitive Participation, care staff in both conditions scored above slightly agree. Therefore in both groups, even before implementation interventions were executed, care staff supported the NAF and believed that they should be involved in learning about the NAF. Utilizing a General Linear Model (GLM) for %u2019Collective Action%u2019 showed a non-significant difference (F = 1.41, p = .24) between TP-0 and TP-1. Similar findings were observed for %u2018Reflexive Monitoring%u2019 (F = 2.32, p = .14). Additionally, %u2019Cognitive Participation%u2019 demonstrated a statistically significant decrease between TP-0 and TP-1 (F = 6.89, p = .012), suggesting that care staff had less support for the NAF over time. Across all variables, no significant between x within-effects were found that could have indicated an effect of the CoP (%u2018cognitive participation%u2019 F = 0.001, p = .97; %u2019collective action%u2019 F = 0.40, p = .53; %u2019reflexive monitoring%u2019 F = 1.03, p = .36).Awareness of considering clients%u2019 perspective on involuntary careOn the Attitude scale, care staff in both conditions scored between neutral and slightly agree at TP-0 (Table 2). GLM for %u2018Attitude%u2019 showed no significant difference (F = 2.68, p= .11) between TP-0 and TP-1. In addition, no significant between x within-effect was found that could have indicated an effect of the CoP (F = 0.02, p = .88).