Reach, adoption, and implementation strategies of a telehealth falls prevention program: perspectives from francophone communities across Canada

Participants and sampling

Purposeful sampling was used to recruit organization representatives and program facilitators in FAMC interested in providing health prevention services to Francophone older adults in their communities. Each organization representative or program facilitator who adopted the program was invited to participate in the study and signed a consent form prior to completing any questionnaires.

Intervention

The MVF falls prevention program is delivered remotely, tailored, and effective in reducing fall risk factors in francophone adults aged 55 and over. Each 90-minute session offered by a trained program facilitator once a week, for 10 weeks includes an educational component and discussion around fall risk factors followed by an exercise program targeting balance, strength, and flexibility. Details of the program can be found in Savard et al. (Savard et al., 2018) and in Appendix1. In this study funding was available for the community agency who wanted to implement the project. Two versions of the program were offered: MVF community where participants met in a local center to complete the program and MVF home where participants connected virtually from their residence.

Demographic and quantitative data

Demographic data including gender identity, language preferences, age and professional experience were used to contextualize the group of animators and organization representatives. Reach, adoption, and implementation data were documented before, during and after program implementation. Reach was measured as the number of the Francophone community contacted by the team, the number of provinces involved, and the number of program facilitators recruited.

Adoption was documented by the number and percentage of communities implementing the program, and the setting of each community. Implementation was documented descriptively by documenting the number of participants who completed the assessments, who participated in the program, as well as attrition. Representatives’ and program facilitators’ perspectives on the implementation were also documented.

Qualitative data

Data reporting on lived experiences related to the reach of organization representatives and program facilitators, and adoption of the program were documented using individual interviews. Implementation of the program was documented using field notes. An MVF trainer (ND) attended the first, second and sixth session in person or virtually to document program implementation through field notes for each community.

Data analysis

A mixed method of analysis was used to triangulate the data. Demographic data were analyzed descriptively (i.e., percentage, mean, standard deviation). Quantitative data was categorized between reach and adoption and analyzed descriptively (i.e., percentage, mean). Pre-program implementation perspectives were compared with post-program results using the CFIR framework and using implementation outcome to document if implementation expectations were under- or overestimated.

Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis following the CFIR framework. Field notes were deductively organized by types of strategies (e.g., reach, adoption, or implementation). Furthermore, the field notes documenting the progress of the program facilitator over the 10 weeks program implementation were deductively categorized under barriers or facilitators. Data from the interviews was transcribed and inductively coded into new themes by two physiotherapist-researchers involved in the implementation of the MVF. The lived experiences of the program facilitators and organization leaders was reviewed by the research team including occupational therapists, physiotherapists and MVF program developers. The quantitative and qualitative data was then integrated in the discussion to allow contextualization of the information.

Demography

Eight organizations from four provinces, three organization representatives and ten program facilitators consented to participate in this study. One organization representative dropped out due to family reasons. Of the twelve organization representatives or program facilitators who completed the study, most were francophone females born in Canada and identifying as cisgender ranging between 20 and 59 years old without previous experience implementing a telehealth program. Five health professions were represented and included physiotherapy (25%), occupational therapy (25%), kinesiology (17%), physical activity or specialized education (17%), social work (8%), and retired healthcare workers (8%) (table 1). Together they implemented 16 MVF programs, representing one to three implementations per community (Table 1).

Setting characteristics: Reach

Thirty-four Francophone communities were contacted between June 2021 and September 2022, using three communication modalities such as email, phone calls and online meetings, for an average of 5 to 10 hours per week allocated to relationship building. Reach and recruitment efforts were also supported by a promotional video and an infographic presenting the program. Each community was contacted by the same person multiple times by email, followed by a phone call or online meetings. Phone calls or online meetings ranged between 20-60 minutes per community. The median age of the francophone population in the contacted provinces who responded (NB, AB, ON, NS, PEI, Nunavut, YK, TNO) ranged between 37 and 55.2 years old, and the percentage of individuals declaring French as their first official language spoken range between 0.5% and 31.8% (table 3).

Setting characteristics: adoption

Out of 34 communities contacted over one year, 8 organizations from 4 different provinces adopted the telehealth program (24%). Hospitals, community health centres and community programs respectively represented 13%, 25%, and 63% of the settings in which the program was adopted (Table 2). Overall, 33 program facilitators were trained over 10 two-day courses between December 2021 and February 2023. Of the provinces which implemented the program, one facilitator was trained in Alberta, six in New Brunswick, four in Prince-Edward Island, and eight in Ontario.

Setting characteristics: implementation

A total of 146 older adults were assessed and 129 completed the program (88%). On average, 2.4% attrition was documented (n=7) following the initial assessment.

Pre implementation perspectives from program facilitators compared to the reality

Program facilitators who responded to the preprogram questionnaire (n=7) slightly underestimated the potential recruitment of older adults, estimating 14 participants (± 3.14) compared to the reality which averaged 18 participants per program. As for the percentage of older adults accepted into the program, facilitators underestimated the acceptance rate in the preprogram questionnaire, estimating 82.9% compared to the reality with 93% of older adults accepted. Regarding the type of telehealth service provided, program facilitators accurately anticipated the location of the MVF telehealth program, estimating 80.7% of the program delivery in centers and 22.1% at home compared to an actual 80,8% and 19,2% respectively.

Reach and Adoption

Reach and adoption data were categorized into external context, internal context, and capacity building. Three sub-themes emerged in the external context category: pandemic-related barriers, infrastructure, and regional priorities. Community representatives and program facilitators reported that public health restrictions caused delays in adopting the new program.

This was mostly related to limited human resources including limited Francophone healthcare professionals capable and willing to facilitate the MVF program. Program facilitators and representatives shared that the MVF program allowed them to reduce isolation, offer a service in French, increase physical activity in older adults, and fulfill a gap around fall prevention Francophone programming in their region. Technology literacy was a limiting factor in the program’s adoption for some communities, and limited financial support was also reported as a barrier for long-term implementation limiting initial adoption.

Regarding internal context, compatibility of the telehealth falls prevention MVF program with the organization’s strategic priorities was described as important for most communities. However, organizational, and structural barriers including multiple decisional levels, complex financial procedures or limited partnerships in the community were reported as challenges. Even though financial support from Health Canada/Société Santé en français (SSF) allowed the project team to support the salary of all program facilitators and acquisition of equipment, challenges with creating effective financial procedures were raised. Many community organizations did not have the financial capacity to purchase equipment and afford salaries prior to being reimbursed, which caused important barriers.

Ongoing support and communication through the pre-implementation steps from the MVF research team was expressed as being critical for capacity building. Each community interacted with the MVF team monthly for 6 to 12 months before implementing the program. This may have facilitated the program adoption.

Implementation

Four themes were identified by the program facilitators as barriers and facilitators to implementation: level of preparation and time management, interpersonal relations and telepresence, exercise facilitation and safety, and technological problem-solving.

Preparation before each class included looking back on previous weeks and introducing the week’s topic. Insufficient planning by several of the facilitators was observed by the MVF trainer in the first sessions, but only from one facilitator by week six demonstrating learning in this area. For time management, program facilitators initially underestimated the length of the exercise program. However, all facilitators were able to improve and deliver the entire content of each class within the planned time by week six.

From an interpersonal relationship perspective, several facilitators showed signs of nervousness, and some were lacking in energetic disposition during the first few classes. Remote interaction with participants sometimes lacked fluidity. Some facilitators initially forgot to engage with participants virtually or were too far from the screen. However, with feedback by week six, all facilitators were interacting with more ease, calling participants by their first names, feeling more comfortable with group discussions, and encouraging participants to talk amongst themselves. To stimulate motivation in participants, some program facilitators used encouragement techniques such as verbal cueing, counting repetitions out loud and words of encouragement from the first session. Telepresence concepts such as optimal positioning in front of the screen and wearing contrasting clothing to maximize visibility were well demonstrated from the outset.

When demonstrating exercises, a lack of clarity in the instructions occasionally caused some confusion for participants. Improvement in this area was observed at all sites during subsequent classes. Safety (i.e., wearing appropriate footwear for the exercises, correcting participants as needed, giving advice on how to modify the exercises when some had difficulty) was well assured by program facilitators throughout the program. Infrastructure selection for community programs, including lighting, room size and layout was adequate in most cases. Only one facilitator needed safety reminders during week six.

Occasionally unstable internet connection and lack of technological preparation (i.e., uncharged computers, missing charging cables, access to password protected on-site computers) posed some challenges. Despite the occasional technological limitations, all program facilitators showed good technological problem-solving skills to ensure that all sessions could be completed smoothly. For example, several facilitators connected to the virtual session on a second device such as a laptop or tablet, placed close to them allowing them to demonstrate exercises while observing participants adequately. Program facilitators also reported that the additional training and feedback received during the implementation were valuable to increase their comfort level in delivering the program.

Limitations

Our results reflect only the reach, adoption, and implementation of MVF by eight FAMC from four provinces. Future studies should focus on reaching communities from provinces and territories with a smaller pool of Francophones to improve access. The financial support from SSF/Health Canada for this project allowed communities to acquire equipment, training, and support for the program implementation; therefore, transferability to other contexts when such financial support is not available may be limited. The authors are aware that the interpretation of the data may be biased as they were involved in supporting various program implementation, but their positionality statement may offer readers a better understanding of how the data was interpreted, therefore improving the trustworthiness of their interpretation.

Key implications for public health interventions, practice, or policy

Time and facilitator engagement are factors well reported in the literature as essential components to successful implementation (Boothroyd et al., 2017). Results from our study support this and contribute by reporting on the importance of capacity building led by a professional with lived experience. Assessment of an organization’s readiness should include fit between the organization’s mission and prevention program and adequate timing of the implementation. Workshops for all stakeholders involved in a new telehealth program should include how to use of specific platforms, how to interact with your audience using technology, how to problem solve different scenarios and a simulation component before engaging with the participants.