Translation to practice: a randomised controlled study of an evidenced based booklet targeted at breast care nurses in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom (UK), it was documented that a problem of knowledge transfer existed within the speciality of breast-cancer care, thus depriving patients of receiving optimal care. Despite increasingly robust research evidence indicating recommendation of whole body exercise for people affected by breast cancer, commensurate changes to practice were not noted amongst breast-care nurses (BCNs). AIM: To evaluate the effect of a targeted booklet, Exercise and Breast Cancer: A Booklet for Breast-Care Nurses, on changes in knowledge, reported practice, and attitudes of BCNs in the UK. METHOD: A prospective, experimental approach was used for designing a pre- and post-test randomised controlled study. Comparisons of knowledge, reported practice, and attitudes based on responses to a questionnaire were made at two time-points in two groups of BCNs (control and experimental). The unit of randomisation and analysis was hospital clusters of BCNs. The sample comprised 92 nurses from 62 hospitals. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics and clustered regression techniques: clustered logistic regression for knowledge items, clustered linear regression for knowledge scores, ologit for attitude and reported practice items, and clustered multiple regression for paired and multiple variable analysis. RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in knowledge and changes in reported practice and attitudes were found. Robust variables affecting knowledge acquisition were: promotion of health, promotion of exercise, and understanding how exercise can reduce cancer-related fatigue. DISCUSSION: The study has shown that evidence-based printed material, such as an information booklet, can be used as an effective research dissemination method when developed for needs, values, and context of a target audience. CONCLUSIONS: This practical approach to research dissemination could be replicated and applied to other groups of nurses.</p

Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study

Objectives To investigate the degree to which Cochrane reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 reported conflicts of interest from included trials and, among reviews that reported this information, where it was located in the review documents. Design Cross sectional study. Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Selection criteria Systematic reviews of drug interventions published in 2010 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with review content classified as up to date in 2008 or later and with results from one or more randomised controlled trials. Results Of 151 included Cochrane reviews, 46 (30%, 95% confidence interval 24% to 38%) reported information on the funding sources of included trials, including 30 (20%, 14% to 27%) that reported information on trial funding for all included trials and 16 (11%, 7% to 17%) that reported for some, but not all, trials. Only 16 of the 151 Cochrane reviews (11%, 7% to 17%) provided any information on trial author-industry financial ties or trial author-industry employment. Information on trial funding and trial author-industry ties was reported in one to seven locations within each review, with no consistent reporting location observed. Conclusions Most Cochrane reviews of drug trials published in 2010 did not provide information on trial funding sources or trial author-industry financial ties or employment. When this information was reported, location of reporting was inconsistent across reviews

Research information in nurses' clinical decision-making: What is useful?

AIM: To examine those sources of information which nurses find useful for reducing the uncertainty associated with their clinical decisions. BACKGROUND: Nursing research has concentrated almost exclusively on the concept of research implementation. Few, if any, papers examine the use of research knowledge in the context of clinical decision-making. There is a need to establish how useful nurses perceive information sources are, for reducing the uncertainties they face when making clinical decisions. DESIGN: Cross-case analysis involving qualitative interviews, observation, documentary audit and Q methodological modelling of shared subjectivities amongst nurses. The case sites were three large acute hospitals in the north of England, United Kingdom. One hundred and eight nurses were interviewed, 61 of whom were also observed for a total of 180 hours and 122 nurses were involved in the Q modelling exercise. RESULTS: Text-based and electronic sources of research-based information yielded only small amounts of utility for practising clinicians. Despite isolating four significantly different perspectives on what sources were useful for clinical decision-making, it was human sources of information for practice that were overwhelmingly perceived as the most useful in reducing the clinical uncertainties of nurse decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: It is not research knowledge per se that carries little weight in the clinical decisions of nurses, but rather the medium through which it is delivered. Specifically, text-based and electronic resources are not viewed as useful by nurses engaged in making decisions in real time, in real practice, but those individuals who represent a trusted and clinically credible source are. More research needs to be carried out on the qualities of people regarded as clinically important information agents (specifically, those in clinical nurse specialist and associated roles) whose messages for practice appear so useful for clinicians