Process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve bronchiolitis management - a PREDICT mixed-methods study.
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Nov 2021
29 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
28
05
2021
accepted:
10
09
2021
entrez:
30
11
2021
pubmed:
1
12
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users' perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data. A pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis. The cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use. Our targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users' perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data.
METHODS
METHODS
A pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 34844605
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07279-2
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-07279-2
pmc: PMC8628472
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1282Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
JAMA. 2016 Feb 9;315(6):562-70
pubmed: 26864410
JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Aug 1;175(8):797-806
pubmed: 33843971
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Pediatrics. 2018 Jun;141(6):
pubmed: 29752289
J Public Health Dent. 2011 Winter;71(s1):S52-S63
pubmed: 21499543
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
JAMA. 2012 May 2;307(17):1801-2
pubmed: 22492759
Implement Sci. 2013 Apr 08;8:41
pubmed: 23566429
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 29;(4):CD005470
pubmed: 25923419
BMC Pediatr. 2018 Jul 6;18(1):218
pubmed: 29980177
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 May;29(5):409-417
pubmed: 32029572
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 24;6:CD000125
pubmed: 31232458
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6
pubmed: 16484270
Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140(6):
pubmed: 29184035
Lancet. 2017 Jan 14;389(10065):211-224
pubmed: 27549684
Implement Sci. 2020 Aug 6;15(1):62
pubmed: 32762726
BMJ. 2015 Jun 02;350:h2305
pubmed: 26037525
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Implement Sci. 2018 Nov 13;13(1):142
pubmed: 30424818
Emerg Med Australas. 2018 Jun;30(3):389-397
pubmed: 29573212
BMC Pediatr. 2020 May 1;20(1):189
pubmed: 32357866
Pediatrics. 2014 Nov;134(5):e1474-502
pubmed: 25349312
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
J Paediatr Child Health. 2019 Jan;55(1):42-53
pubmed: 30009459
Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 7;8(1):266
pubmed: 31699136
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33
pubmed: 15692000
Trials. 2013 Jan 12;14:15
pubmed: 23311722
Br J Health Psychol. 2015 Feb;20(1):130-50
pubmed: 24815766
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Apr;169(4):307-9
pubmed: 25706238
Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-30
pubmed: 14568747
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Feb;8(6):iii-iv, 1-72
pubmed: 14960256
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986