Impact of CONSORT extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology : review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials : a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Reporting and design elements of audit and feedback interventions: a secondary review

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a frequently used intervention aiming to support implementation of research evidence into clinical practice with positive, yet variable, effects. Our understanding of effective A&F has been limited by poor reporting and intervention heterogeneity. Our objective was to describe the extent of these issues. METHODS: Using a secondary review of A&F interventions and a consensus-based process to identify modifiable A&F elements, we examined intervention descriptions in 140 trials of A&F to quantify reporting limitations and describe the interventions. RESULTS: We identified 17 modifiable A&F intervention elements; 14 were examined to quantify reporting limitations and all 17 were used to describe the interventions. Clear reporting of the elements ranged from 56% to 97% with a median of 89%. There was considerable variation in A&F interventions with 51% for individual providers only, 92% targeting behaviour change and 79% targeting processes of care, 64% performed by the provider group and 81% reporting aggregate patient data. CONCLUSIONS: Our process identified 17 A&F design elements, demonstrated gaps in reporting and helped understand the degree of variation in A&F interventions

How can behavioural science help us design better trials?

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol

There is growing recognition that "context" can and does modify the effects of implementation interventions aimed at increasing healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what exactly comprises "context" is lacking. The purpose of this research program is to develop, refine, and validate a framework that identifies the key domains of context (and their features) that can facilitate or hinder (1) healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials

Taljaard, M., Goldstein, C. E., Giraudeau, B., Nicholls, S. G., Carroll, K., Hey, S. P., … Weijer, C. (2020). Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials. Clinical Trials. Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/174077451989679

Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis

Background: To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of evidence-based practices, researchers, knowledge users, and healthcare professionals must consider aspects of context that promote and hinder implementation in their setting. The purpose of the current study was to identify contextual attributes and their features relevant to implementation by healthcare professionals and compare and contrast these attributes and features across different clinical settings and healthcare professional roles. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of 145 semi-structured interviews comprising 11 studies (10 from Canada and one from Australia) investigating healthcare professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to their use of research evidence in clinical practice. The data was collected using semi-structured interview guides informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework across different healthcare professional roles, settings, and practices. We analyzed these data inductively, using constant comparative analysis, to identify attributes of context and their features reported in the interviews. We compared these data by (1) setting (primary care, hospital-medical/surgical, hospital-emergency room, hospital-critical care) and (2) professional role (physicians and residents, nurses and organ donor coordinators). Results: We identified 62 unique features of context, which we categorized under 14 broader attributes of context. The 14 attributes were resource access, work structure, patient characteristics, professional role, culture, facility characteristics, system features, healthcare professional characteristics, financial, collaboration, leadership, evaluation, regulatory or legislative standards, and societal influences. We found instances of the majority (n = 12, 86%) of attributes of context across multiple (n = 6 or more) clinical behaviors. We also found little variation in the 14 attributes of context by setting (primary care and hospitals) and professional role (physicians and residents, and nurses and organ donor coordinators). Conclusions: There was considerable consistency in the 14 attributes identified irrespective of the clinical behavior, setting, or professional role, supporting broad utility of the attributes of context identified in this study. There was more variation in the finer-grained features of these attributes with the most substantial variation being by setting