Dataset Information

Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Many developed countries have high mortality rates for fire-related deaths in children aged 0-14 years with steep social gradients. Evidence-based interventions to promote fire safety practices exist, but the impact of implementing a range of these interventions in children's services has not been assessed. We developed an Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB), which brought together evidence about effective fire safety interventions and good practice in delivering interventions; plus training and facilitation to support its use and evaluated its implementation. METHODS:We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated qualitative and cost-effectiveness nested studies, across four study sites in England involving children's centres in disadvantaged areas; participants were staff and families attending those centres. Centres were stratified by study site and randomised within strata to one of three arms: IPB plus facilitation (IPB+), IPB only, usual care. IPB+ centres received initial training and facilitation at months 1, 3, and 8. Baseline data from children's centres were collected between August 2011 and January 2012 and follow-up data were collected between June 2012 and June 2013. Parent baseline data were collected between January 2012 and May 2012 and follow-up data between May 2013 and September 2013. Data comprised baseline and 12 month parent- and staff-completed questionnaires, facilitation contact data, activity logs and staff interviews. The primary outcome was whether families had a plan for escaping from a house fire. Treatment arms were compared using multilevel models to account for clustering by children's centre. RESULTS:1112 parents at 36 children's centres participated. There was no significant effect of the intervention on families' possession of plans for escaping from a house fire (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) IPB only vs. usual care: 0.93, 95%CI 0.58, 1.49; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.41, 95%CI 0.91, 2.20). However, significantly more families in the intervention arms reported more behaviours for escaping from house fires (AOR IPB only vs. usual care: 2.56, 95%CI 01.38, 4.76; AOR IPB+ vs. usual care 1.78, 95%CI 1.01, 3.15). CONCLUSION:Our study demonstrated that children's centres can deliver an injury prevention intervention to families in disadvantaged communities and achieve changes in home safety behaviours.

SUBMITTER: Deave T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5365108 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Deave Toity T Hawkins Adrian A Kumar Arun A Hayes Mike M Cooper Nicola N Watson Michael M Ablewhite Joanne J Coupland Carol C Sutton Alex A Majsak-Newman Gosia G McDaid Lisa L Goodenough Trudy T Beckett Kate K McColl Elaine E Reading Richard R Kendrick Denise D

PloS one 20170324 3

<h4>Background</h4>Many developed countries have high mortality rates for fire-related deaths in children aged 0-14 years with steep social gradients. Evidence-based interventions to promote fire safety practices exist, but the impact of implementing a range of these interventions in children's services has not been assessed. We developed an Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB), which brought together evidence about effective fire safety interventions and good practice in delivering interventions; p ...[more]

PMID: 28339460

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo improve the translation of public health evidence into practice, there is a need to increase practitioner involvement in initiative development, to place greater emphasis on contextual knowledge, and to address intervention processes and outcomes. Evidence that demonstrates the need to reduce childhood fire-related injuries is compelling but its translation into practice is inconsistent and limited. With this knowledge the Keeping Children Safe programme developed an "Injury Prevention Briefing (IPB)" using a 7 step process to combine scientific evidence with practitioner contextual knowledge. The IPB was designed specifically for children's centres (CCs) to support delivery of key fire safety messages to parents. This paper reports the findings of a nested qualitative study within a clustered randomised controlled trial of the IPB, in which staff described their experiences of IPB implementation to aid understanding of why or how the intervention worked.MethodsInterviews were conducted with key staff at 24 CCs participating in the two intervention arms: 1) IPB supplemented by initial training and regular facilitation; 2) IPB sent by post with no facilitation. Framework Analysis was applied to these interview data to explore intervention adherence including; exposure or dose; quality of delivery; participant responsiveness; programme differentiation; and staff experience of IPB implementation. This included barriers, facilitators and suggested improvements.Results83% of CCs regarded the IPB as a simple, accessible tool which raised awareness, and stimulated discussion and behaviour change. 15 CCs suggested minor modifications to format and content. Four levels of implementation were identified according to content, frequency, duration and coverage. Most CCs (75%) achieved 'extended' or 'essential' IPB implementation. Three universal factors affected all CCs: organisational change and resourcing; working with hard to engage groups; additional demands of participating in a research study. Six specific factors were associated with the implementation level achieved: staff engagement and training; staff continuity; adaptability and flexibility; other agency support; conflicting priorities; facilitation. CCs achieving high implementation levels increased from 58% (no facilitation) to 92% with facilitation.ConclusionIncorporating service provider perspectives and scientific evidence into health education initiatives enhances potential for successful implementation, particularly when supplemented by ongoing training and facilitation.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:BackgroundTobacco use adversely affects oral health. Tobacco use prevention and cessation (TUPAC) counselling guidelines recommend that healthcare providers ask about each patient's tobacco use, assess the patient's readiness and willingness to stop, document tobacco use habits, advise the patient to stop, assist and help in quitting, and arrange monitoring of progress at follow-up appointments. Adherence to such guidelines, especially among dental providers, is poor. To improve guideline implementation, it is essential to understand factors influencing it and find effective ways to influence those factors. The aim of the present study protocol is to introduce a theory-based approach to diagnose implementation difficulties of TUPAC counselling guidelines among dental providers.MethodsTheories of behaviour change have been used to identify key theoretical domains relevant to the behaviours of healthcare providers involved in implementing clinical guidelines. These theoretical domains will inform the development of a questionnaire aimed at assessing the implementation of the TUPAC counselling guidelines among Finnish municipal dental providers. Specific items will be drawn from the guidelines and the literature on TUPAC studies. After identifying potential implementation difficulties, we will design two interventions using theories of behaviour change to link them with relevant behaviour change techniques aiming to improve guideline adherence. For assessing the implementation of TUPAC guidelines, the electronic dental record audit and self-reported questionnaires will be used.DiscussionTo improve guideline adherence, the theoretical-domains approach could provide a comprehensive basis for assessing implementation difficulties, as well as designing and evaluating interventions. After having identified implementation difficulties, we will design and test two interventions to enhance TUPAC guideline adherence. Using the cluster randomised controlled design, we aim to provide further evidence on intervention effects, as well as on the validity and feasibility of the theoretical-domain approach. The empirical data collected within this trial will be useful in testing whether this theoretical-domain approach can improve our understanding of the implementation of TUPAC guidelines among dental providers.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN15427433.

Project description:BackgroundFamily involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is under-implemented in mental health care, despite its firm scientific, economic, legal and moral basis. This appears to be the case in Norway, despite the presence of national guidelines providing both general recommendations on family involvement and support in the health- and care services, and specific guidance on family interventions for patients with psychotic disorders. The aim of this project is to improve mental health services and the psychosocial health of persons with psychotic disorders and their relatives, by implementing selected recommendations from the national guidelines in community mental health centres, and to evaluate this process.MethodsThe trial is cluster randomised, where 14 outpatient clusters from community mental health centres undergo stratified randomisation with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The seven intervention clusters will receive implementation support for 18 months, whereas the control clusters will receive the same support after this implementation period. The intervention consists of: 1. A basic level of family involvement and support. 2. Family psychoeducation in single-family groups. 3. Training and guidance of health care personnel. 4. A family coordinator and 5. Other implementation measures. Fidelity to the intervention will be measured four times in the intervention arm and two times in the control arm, and the differences in fidelity changes between the arms constitute the primary outcomes. In each arm, we aim to include 161 patients with psychotic disorders and their closest relative to fill in questionnaires at inclusion, 6 months and 12 months, measuring psychosocial health and satisfaction with services. Clinicians will contribute clinical data about patients at inclusion and 12 months. Use of health and welfare services and work participation, for both patients and relatives, will be retrieved from national registries. We will also perform qualitative interviews with patients, relatives, health care personnel and leaders. Finally, we will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a political economy analysis.DiscussionThis project, with its multilevel and mixed methods approach, may contribute valuable knowledge to the fields of family involvement, mental health service research and implementation science.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177 . Registered 11.03.19.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. This study used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework as its theoretical underpinning to test whether two different approaches to facilitating implementation could affect the use of research evidence in practice.MethodsA pragmatic clustered randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation was used. The study took place in four European countries across 24 long-term nursing care sites, for people aged 60 years or more with documented urinary incontinence. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination, or one of two different types of facilitation. The primary outcome was the documented percentage compliance with the continence recommendations, assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the intervention. Data were analysed using STATA15, multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models were fitted to scores for compliance with the continence recommendations, adjusting for clustering.ResultsQuantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (documented compliance with continence recommendations) between study arms and all study arms improved over time.ConclusionsThis was the first cross European randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation that sought to test different methods of facilitation. There were no statistically significant differences in compliance with continence recommendations between the groups. It was not possible to identify whether different types and "doses" of facilitation were influential within very diverse contextual conditions. The process evaluation (Rycroft-Malone et al., Implementation Science. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0) revealed the models of facilitation used were limited in their ability to overcome the influence of contextual factors.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502 . Date 4/2/10. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 223646.

Project description:Evidence for effective falls prevention interventions in acute wards is limited. One reason for this may be suboptimal program implementation. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and enablers of the implementation of the 6-PACK falls prevention program to inform the implementation in a randomised controlled trial. Strategies to optimise successful implementation of 6-PACK were also sought. A mixed-methods approach was applied in 24 acute wards from 6 Australian hospitals. Participants were nurses working on participating wards and senior hospital staff including Nurse Unit Managers; senior physicians; Directors of Nursing; and senior personnel involved in quality and safety or falls prevention. Information on barriers and enablers of 6-PACK implementation was obtained through surveys, focus groups and interviews. Questions reflected the COM-B framework that includes three behaviour change constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation. Focus group and interview data were analysed thematically, and survey data descriptively. The survey response rate was 60% (420/702), and 12 focus groups (n = 96 nurses) and 24 interviews with senior staff were conducted. Capability barriers included beliefs that falls could not be prevented; and limited knowledge on falls prevention in patients with complex care needs (e.g. cognitive impairment). Capability enablers included education and training, particularly face to face case study based approaches. Lack of resources was identified as an opportunity barrier. Leadership, champions and using data to drive practice change were recognised as opportunity enablers. Motivation barriers included complacency and lack of ownership in falls prevention efforts. Motivation enablers included senior staff articulating clear goals and a commitment to falls prevention; and use of reminders, audits and feedback. The information gained from this study suggests that regular practical face-to-face education and training for nurses; provision of equipment; audit, reminders and feedback; leadership and champions; and the provision of falls data is key to successful falls prevention program implementation in acute hospitals.

Project description:BackgroundPeople living with diabetes must manage a range of factors for optimal control of glycaemia and to minimise the risk of diabetes-related complications. Diabetes practitioners are expected to follow guidelines for the key process of care and clinical outcomes, to help people living with diabetes achieve clinical targets. In Australia, the performance of diabetes centres against guidelines is evaluated by the Australian National Diabetes Audit, an annual clinical audit and feedback activity. Previous work has identified areas for improvement in the feedback provided to participating diabetes centres and suggested additional educational and support resources to assist in using audit feedback for the development of quality improvement activities. This cluster randomised trial will test the acceptability, utility and impact on selected clinical outcomes of the developed study intervention (audit feedback and a tailored educational and peer support cointervention).MethodsTwo-armed cluster randomised trial with Australian Diabetes Centres that participated in the Australian National Diabetes Audit in 2021 as the clusters, stratified by location and type of centre. We aim to recruit 35 diabetes centres in each arm. Both the intervention and control arms will receive an augmented feedback report, accompanied by a partially pre-populated slide deck. In addition, the intervention arm will receive a tailored theory-based intervention designed to address identified, modifiable barriers to utilising and implementing the recommendations from diabetes audit feedback. The co-primary outcomes are (1) HbA1c at the patient level, measured at 6 months after delivery of the intervention, and (2) the acceptability and utility of the augmented feedback and cointerventions at the practitioner level, measured at 3 months after delivery of the intervention.DiscussionThis trial aims to test the effects of systematic development and implementation of theory and evidence-informed changes to the audit feedback delivered to diabetes centres participating in an established national clinical diabetes audit. Potential benefits of improved audit feedback include more optimal engagement with the feedback by end clinical users which, ultimately, may lead to improvements in care for people living with diabetes.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000765820. Prospectively registered on June 21, 2021.

Dataset Information

Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Evaluating implementation of a fire-prevention injury prevention briefing in children's centres: Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets