The PD COMM trial: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease.

Background: The PD COMM trial is a phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trial whose aim is to evaluate
the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to speech and language therapy (SLT) compared with
no SLT intervention (control) for people with Parkinson’s disease who have self-reported or carer-reported problems
with their speech or voice. Our protocol describes the process evaluation embedded within the outcome evaluation
whose aim is to evaluate what happened at the time of the PD COMM intervention implementation and to provide
findings that will assist in the interpretation of the PD COMM trial results. Furthermore, the aim of the PD COMM process
evaluation is to investigate intervention complexity within a theoretical model of how the trialled interventions might
work best and why.
Methods/design: Drawing from the Normalization Process Theory and frameworks for implementation fidelity, a mixed
method design will be used to address process evaluation research questions. Therapists’ and participants’ perceptions
and experiences will be investigated via in-depth interviews. Critical incident reports, baseline survey data from therapists,
treatment record forms and home practice diaries also will be collected at relevant time points throughout the running
of the PD COMM trial. Process evaluation data will be analysed independently of the outcome evaluation before the two
sets of data are then combined.
Discussion: To date, there are a limited number of published process evaluation protocols, and few are linked to trials
investigating rehabilitation therapies. Providing a strong theoretical framework underpinning design choices and being
tailored to meet the complex characteristics of the trialled interventions, our process evaluation has the potential to
provide valuable insight into which components of the interventions being delivered in PD COMM worked best (and
what did not), how they worked well and why.

1. de Lau LM, Breteler MM. Epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease. Lancet
Neurol. 2006;5(6):525–35.
2. Wirdefeldt K, Adami HO, Cole P, Trichopoulos D, Mandel J. Epidemiology
and etiology of Parkinson’s disease: a review of the evidence. Eur J
Epidemiol. 2011;26 Suppl 1:S1–58.
3. Parkinson’s UK. Parkinson’s prevalence in the United Kingdom. 2009. http://
www.parkinsons.org.uk/sites/default/files/parkinsonsprevalenceuk_0.pdf.
Accessed 20 Jan 2016.
4. Heberlein I, Vieregge P. The influence of speech disturbances on quality of
life and coping strategies on Parkinson’s disease patients [in German].
Forum Logopädie. 2005;19(3):26–31.
5. Spurgeon L, Clarke CE, Sackley CM. Subjective experiences of speech and
language therapy in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study. Rehabil
Res Pract. 2015;2015:839895.
6. Sackley CM, Smith CH, Rick C, Brady MC, Ives N, Patel R, et al. Lee Silverman
voice treatment versus standard NHS speech and language therapy versus
control in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM pilot): study protocol for a
randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:213.
7. Herd CP, Tomlinson CL, Deane KH, Brady MC, Smith CH, Sackley CM, et al.
Comparison of speech and language therapy techniques for speech
problems in Parkinson’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:
CD002814.
8. Yorkston KM, Hakel M, Beukelman DR, Fager S. Evidence for effectiveness of
treatment loudness, rate, or prosody in dysarthria: a systematic review. J
Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;15(2):11–36.
9. Ramig LO, Countryman S, Thompson LL, Horii Y. Comparison of two forms
of intensive speech treatment for Parkinson disease. J Speech Hear Res.
1995;38(6):1232–51.
10. Spielman J, Ramig LO, Mahler L, Halpern A, Gavin WJ. Effects of an
extended version of the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment on voice and
speech in Parkinson’s disease. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;16(2):95–107.
11. Hustad KC. The relationship between listener comprehension and
intelligibility scores for speakers with dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res.
2008;51(3):562–73.
12. Medical Research Council. Framework for the development and evaluation
of complex interventions in health and social care. London: Medical
Research Council; 2001.
13. Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluation complex
interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008.
14. Steckler A, Linnan L, editors. Process evaluation for public health
interventions and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
15. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. Process evaluation in randomised
controlled trials of complex interventions. Health Serv Res. 2006;332:413–6.
16. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual
framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007;2:40–9.
17. Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for
cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework
for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15.
18. Masterson-Algar P, Burton CR, Rycroft-Malone J, Sackley C, Walker M.
Towards a programme theory for fidelity in the evaluation of complex
interventions. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(4):445–52.
19. Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised
controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health
interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:2299–306.
20. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process
evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance.
BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.
21. May C, Finch T. Implementation, embedding and integration: an outline of
Normalization Process Theory. Sociology. 2009;43:535–54.
22. Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, et al.
Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and
implementing complex interventions. BMC Med. 2010;8:63.
23. May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, et al. Understanding
the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the
normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148.
24. Finch TL, Girling M, May CR, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, et al. NoMAD:
implementation measure based on Normalization Process Theory. 2015.
http://www.normalizationprocess.org/resources/. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
25. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In: Weinman J,
Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Causal and control beliefs. [Measures in health
psychology: a user’s portfolio series]. Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1995. p. 35–7.
26. Spradley JP. Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1980.
27. Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health
care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.
28. Schluter J, Seaton P, Chaboyer W. Critical incident technique: a user’s guide
for nurse researchers. J Adv Nurs. 2007;61:107–14.
29. Gibbs G. Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods.
Oxford: Further Educational Unit, Oxford Polytechnic; 1988.
30. Argyris C, Schon DA. Theory in practice: increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1974.
31. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al.
Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and
replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.
32. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol.
2006;3(2):77–101.
33. Richards DA. The complex interventions framework. In: Richards DA,
Hallberg IR, editors. Complex interventions in health: an overview of
research methods. Abingdon: Routledge; 2015. p. 1–15.
34. Munro A, Bloor M. Process evaluation: the new miracle ingredient in public
health research? Qual Res. 2010;10:699–713.
35. Morrison DM, Hoppe MJ, Gillmore MR, Kluver C, Higa D, Wells EA.
Replicating an intervention: the tension between fidelity and adaptation.
AIDS Educ Prev. 2009;21(2):128–40.