Table 1 Implementation outcomes
Outcomes | Level of analysis | Indicators | Data Collection Tool | Time of data collection | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acceptability | Organisation | Acceptability of the implementation | Qualitative interview and Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Participants | Satisfaction with the intervention | Qualitative interview and 0 to 100 points scale and AIM | Post-implementation | ||
Appropriateness | Participants | Are the components of the online pain science education programme appropriate for the health condition? | Qualitative interview, Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) and an adapted questionnaire used by Liao et al. (2020) | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Organisation | If intervention is appropriate for the public health condition | Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) | Post-implementation | ||
Feasibility | Participants | Feasibility of the intervention | Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Organisation | Feasibility of the implementation | Qualitative interview and FIM | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Individual providers | Feasibility of the implementation | Qualitative interview and FIM | Post-implementation | ||
Adoption | Participants | Enrolled participants being contacted | Own domain database | During implementation | ||
| Â | Â | Burden (reasons for not taking part) | Qualitative interview during triage | Pre-baseline | ||
Fidelity | Creator of the intervention | 10% of taped sessions of the intervention group were randomly selected and reviewed by an expert panel, against the full detailed intervention manuals for adherence and quality | Qualitative interview | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Participants | Number of participants that adhered to the intervention | Frequency during intervention | During implementation | ||
| Â | Â | Self-rated performing the proposed activities at home for 10Â weeks and the 6-month of follow-up | Adherence to the proposed homework (0 to 10 points scale); and the exercise adherence scale (EARS-Br) | Post-implementation | ||
Penetration | Organisation | Which primary healthcare units referred users with musculoskeletal pain for intervention? | Health regulation data and/or digital health record | During and post-implementation | ||
Sustainability | Organisation | Do you think this project will be sustainable over time? | Qualitative interview | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Participants | Indicator of drop in the response rate of the synchronous group | Own domain database | During implementation | ||
| Â | Â | Burden (reasons for discontinuation or dropping out) | Qualitative interview | During implementation | ||
Costs | Participants | Self-rated costs for the treatment of chronic pain | Diary of cost | During and post-implementation | ||
| Â | Organisation | Costs of public healthcare | Domain database and health regulation data | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Individual providers | Costs of the intervention | Survey | Post-implementation | ||
|  | Researchers team | Cost-effectiveness | Economic evaluation (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio – ICER—of the three strategies of the intervention) | Post-implementation | ||
| Â | Â | Cost-utility | Economic evaluation (measured by the EQ-5D-3L to calculate quality-of-life-adjusted life years) | Post-implementation | ||