Dataset Information

A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions.

ABSTRACT: 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).

SUBMITTER: Rycroft-Malone J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3457838 | biostudies-other | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions.

Rycroft-Malone Jo J Seers Kate K Crichton Nicola N Chandler Jackie J Hawkes Claire A CA Allen Claire C Bullock Ian I Strunin Leo L

Implementation science : IS 20120830

<h4>Background</h4>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 a ...[more]

PMID: 22935241

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDaily physical activity is critical during the early years of life for facilitating children's health and development. A large proportion of preschool children do not achieve the recommended 3 h of daily physical activity. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are a key setting to intervene to increase physical activity. There is a significant need for ECEC specific physical activity policy, including clearer guidelines on the amount of physical activity children should do during care, and strategies for implementation of these guidelines.MethodsThis study is a pragmatic cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Play Active physical activity policy intervention to improve early childhood education and care educator's physical activity-related practices. The central component of Play Active is an evidence-informed physical activity policy template which includes 25 practices to support nine age-specific recommendations on the amount of physical activity and sedentary time, including screen time, young children should do while in care. There are six implementation support strategies to facilitate physical activity policy implementation: (i) personalise policy (services select at least five of the 25 practices to focus on initially); (ii) policy review and approval; (iii) a resource guide; (iv) a brief assessment tool for monitoring children's energetic play; (v) professional development; and (vi) Project Officer implementation support (phone calls). A total of 60 early childhood education and care services will be recruited from metropolitan Perth, Western Australia. After baseline assessment, services will be randomly allocated to either intervention or wait-listed comparison conditions. Primary (educator-reported frequency and amount of daily time provided for children's physical activity, sedentary and screen time) and secondary (educator physical activity-related practices, self-efficacy, motivation, attitudes and beliefs, social support, and supportive physical environment) outcomes will be assessed at baseline and post-intervention, after intervention services have had a minimum 3 months of policy implementation within their service.DiscussionThe Play Active trial will rigorously evaluate a novel physical activity policy intervention with implementation support that promotes positive physical activity behaviours in educators and children attending ECEC. If effective, the program could be adapted, scaled-up and delivered in ECEC services nationally.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001206910 (date of registration 13/11/2020).

Project description:BackgroundMany 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.MethodsWe 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.Results1112 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).ConclusionOur study demonstrated that children's centres can deliver an injury prevention intervention to families in disadvantaged communities and achieve changes in home safety behaviours.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Project description:BackgroundWhile effective physical activity referral schemes (PARSs) and related structures for promoting physical activity (PA) already exist in several countries, in Germany, PARSs have not yet been implemented systematically and nationwide. Through a co-production approach with relevant actors in the German healthcare system, a PARS was developed, and an implementation plan was created (e.g. financing). This study protocol aims to evaluate the developed PARS for people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Germany regarding its potential effectiveness and implementation success.MethodsTo evaluate the effectiveness and implementation success of the PARS, we will apply a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in Hybrid II design by comparing two intervention groups (PARS vs PA advice [PAA]). The trial will take place in the Nürnberg metropolitan region, with 24 physician practices recruiting 567 people with NCDs. Both groups will receive brief PA advice from a physician to initially increase the participants' motivation to change their activity level. Subsequently, the PARS group will be given individualised support from an exercise professional to increase their PA levels and be transferred to local exercise opportunities. In contrast, participants in the PAA group will receive only the brief PA advice as well as information and an overview of regional PA offerings to become more active at their own initiative. After 12 and 24 weeks, changes in moderate to vigorous PA and in physical activity-related health competence (movement competence, control competence, self-regulation competence) will be measured as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include changes in quality of life. To measure implementation success, we refer to the RE-AIM framework and draw on patient documentation, interviews, focus groups and surveys of the participating actors (physicians, exercise professionals).DiscussionThrough a between-group comparison, we will investigate whether additional individual support by an exercise professional compared to brief PA advice alone leads to higher PA levels in people with NCDs. The acceptance and feasibility of both interventions in routine care in the German healthcare system will also be evaluated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04947787 . Registered 01 June 2021.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing the introduction of a computerised diabetes register in part of the northeast of England, care initially improved but then plateaued. We therefore enhanced the existing diabetes register to address these problems. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an area wide 'extended,' computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and management system, including individualised patient management prompts to primary care clinicians based on locally-adapted, evidence-based guidelines.MethodsThe study design was a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with the general practice as the unit of randomisation. Set in 58 general practices in three Primary Care Trusts in the northeast of England, the study outcomes were the clinical process and outcome variables held on the diabetes register, patient-reported outcomes, and service and patient costs. The effect of the intervention was estimated using generalised linear models with an appropriate error structure. To allow for the clustering of patients within practices, population averaged models were estimated using generalized estimating equations.ResultsPatients in intervention practices were more likely to have at least one diabetes appointment recorded (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02, 3.91), to have a recording of a foot check (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09, 3.21), have a recording of receiving dietary advice (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22, 6.29), and have a recording of blood pressure (BP) (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.06, 4.36). There was no difference in mean HbA1c or BP levels, but the mean cholesterol level in patients from intervention practices was significantly lower (-0.15 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.25, -0.06). There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes or in patient-reported use of drugs, or uptake of health services. The average cost per patient was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Costs incurred in administering the system at the register and in general practice were in addition to these.ConclusionThis study has shown benefits from an area-wide, computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and individualised patient management system. However, these benefits were achieved at a cost. In future, these costs may fall as electronic data exchange becomes a reliable reality.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN32042030.

Dataset Information

A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions.

Publications

A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets