Barriers and facilitators to conducting randomised controlled trials within routine care of neurorehabilitation centres: a qualitative study.
Barriers and facilitators
Delivery of Health Care
Feasibility
Interview
Randomised Controlled Trial
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Oct 2024
30 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
08
06
2024
accepted:
23
10
2024
medline:
31
10
2024
pubmed:
31
10
2024
entrez:
31
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating clinical evidence. The focus on high internal validity in RCTs challenges the external validity and generalisability of findings, potentially hindering their application in routine care. In neurorehabilitation, limited literature addresses conducting RCTs feasibly and efficiently. We investigated barriers and facilitators to conducting RCTs within routine care of neurorehabilitation centres from the perspective of stakeholders in neurorehabilitation in Germany and Austria. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in neurorehabilitation from four centres in Germany and Austria, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model (COM-B). Employing a hybrid approach, the interview analysis integrated both deductive, theory-driven analysis based on the TDF domains and COM-B model and inductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Twelve stakeholders (4 physicians, 4 therapy managers, 4 therapists; 5 females, 7 males; with research experience spanning 0-40 years) were interviewed. Key barriers to conducting RCTs in neurological rehabilitation centres include limited financial, human, and time resources, high clinical workloads, and a lack of interest of some therapists. Ineffective leadership, perceived lack of research expertise, and communication issues were also significant barriers. Social influence factors such as lack of employer support and inadequate training access further contributed to the challenges. Additionally, barriers included insufficient research infrastructure, limited space, internal power struggles, and rigid cost bearer specifications. Key facilitators included physicians' and therapists' motivation to advance the field, contribute to knowledge, and to prioritise patient health. Support from supervisors, joint decision-making, and efficient organisation were crucial facilitators. Flexible therapy planning, mutual support, and interdisciplinary collaboration also played important roles. Our results suggest that increasing professional development and understanding, along with providing adequate financial, human, time, and spatial resources to support research endeavours, implementing effective communication strategies to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination among team members may contribute to increased motivation and facilitate RCTs within the setting of neurorehabilitation centres. This study was prospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (08.04.2021 DRKSID DRKS00024982).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating clinical evidence. The focus on high internal validity in RCTs challenges the external validity and generalisability of findings, potentially hindering their application in routine care. In neurorehabilitation, limited literature addresses conducting RCTs feasibly and efficiently. We investigated barriers and facilitators to conducting RCTs within routine care of neurorehabilitation centres from the perspective of stakeholders in neurorehabilitation in Germany and Austria.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in neurorehabilitation from four centres in Germany and Austria, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model (COM-B). Employing a hybrid approach, the interview analysis integrated both deductive, theory-driven analysis based on the TDF domains and COM-B model and inductive, reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve stakeholders (4 physicians, 4 therapy managers, 4 therapists; 5 females, 7 males; with research experience spanning 0-40 years) were interviewed. Key barriers to conducting RCTs in neurological rehabilitation centres include limited financial, human, and time resources, high clinical workloads, and a lack of interest of some therapists. Ineffective leadership, perceived lack of research expertise, and communication issues were also significant barriers. Social influence factors such as lack of employer support and inadequate training access further contributed to the challenges. Additionally, barriers included insufficient research infrastructure, limited space, internal power struggles, and rigid cost bearer specifications. Key facilitators included physicians' and therapists' motivation to advance the field, contribute to knowledge, and to prioritise patient health. Support from supervisors, joint decision-making, and efficient organisation were crucial facilitators. Flexible therapy planning, mutual support, and interdisciplinary collaboration also played important roles.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that increasing professional development and understanding, along with providing adequate financial, human, time, and spatial resources to support research endeavours, implementing effective communication strategies to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination among team members may contribute to increased motivation and facilitate RCTs within the setting of neurorehabilitation centres.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This study was prospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (08.04.2021 DRKSID DRKS00024982).
Identifiants
pubmed: 39478460
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02386-0
pii: 10.1186/s12874-024-02386-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
258Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Howard-Jones AR, Webb SA. Embedding clinical trials within routine health-care delivery: challenges and opportunities. J Paediatr Child Health. 2021;57(4):474–6.
doi: 10.1111/jpc.15354
pubmed: 33656215
pmcid: 8013288
Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, Deruyter F, Eng JJ, Fisher B, Harvey RL, et al. Guidelines for adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery: a Guideline for Healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–169.
doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000098
pubmed: 27145936
Jaramillo ET, Willging CE, Saldana L, Self-Brown S, Weeks EA, Whitaker DJ. Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions in the context of a randomized clinical trial in the United States: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):88.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09079-2
pubmed: 36703142
pmcid: 9878981
Tiffany F, Laure P, Andrea CT, Sharon ES, Peter J, Merrick Z, Lisa ML, Mark S, Laura CR, David AH. Protocol for a scoping review of post-trial extensions of randomised controlled trials using individually linked administrative and registry data. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e013770.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013770
Tomlin G, Borgetto B. Research pyramid: a New evidence-based practice model for Occupational Therapy. Am J Occup Therapy. 2011;65(2):189–96.
doi: 10.5014/ajot.2011.000828
Borgetto B, Born S, Bünemann-Geißler D, Düchting M, Kahrs AM, Kasper N, Menzel M, Netzband A, Reichel K, Reßler W et al. Die Forschungspyramide - Diskussionsbeitrag zur Evidenz-basierten Praxis in der Physiotherapie. physioscience 2007, 3(01):27–34.
Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, Bakken S, Kaplan CP, Squiers L, Fabrizio C, et al. How we Design Feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):452–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
pubmed: 19362699
pmcid: 2859314
Kaur G, Smyth RL, Williamson P. Developing a survey of barriers and facilitators to recruitment in randomized controlled trials. Trials. 2012;13(1):218.
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-218
pubmed: 23171513
pmcid: 3563446
Foster JM, Sawyer SM, Smith L, Reddel HK, Usherwood T. Barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment to a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care: lessons for future trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):18.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0012-3
pubmed: 25887970
pmcid: 4369080
Deenik J, Czosnek L, Teasdale SB, Stubbs B, Firth J, Schuch FB, Tenback DE, van Harten PN, Tak E, Lederman O, et al. From impact factors to real impact: translating evidence on lifestyle interventions into routine mental health care. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(4):1070–3.
doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz067
pubmed: 31169897
Hill TP. Conducting Phase IV clinical studies: a moral imperative? Ecancermedicalscience. 2012;6:276. https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2012.276 . eCollection 2012.
Menon A, Korner-Bitensky N, Kastner M, McKibbon KA, Straus S. Strategies for rehabilitation professionals to move evidence-based knowledge into practice: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(13):1024–32.
doi: 10.2340/16501977-0451
pubmed: 19893996
Torres-Saavedra PA, Winter KA. An overview of phase 2 clinical trial designs. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;112(1):22–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1700
pubmed: 34363901
Henry BM, Lippi G, Nasser A, Ostrowski P. Characteristics of phase IV clinical trials in Oncology: an analysis using the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry Data. Curr Oncol. 2023;30(6):5932–45.
doi: 10.3390/curroncol30060443
pubmed: 37366926
pmcid: 10297460
Chapman E, Pantoja T, Kuchenmüller T, Sharma T, Terry RF. Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):140.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00780-4
pubmed: 34865640
O’Cathain A, Croot L, Duncan E, Rousseau N, Sworn K, Turner KM, Yardley L, Hoddinott P. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ open. 2019;9(8):e029954.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954
pubmed: 31420394
Farrell B, Kenyon S, Shakur H. Managing clinical trials. Trials. 2010;11(1):78.
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-78
pubmed: 20626885
Swain J. A Hybrid Approach to Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research: Using a Practical Example. In. London; 2018.
Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):37.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-37
pubmed: 22530986
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26.
doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
pubmed: 15692000
pmcid: 1743963
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness Criteria. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847.
doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021.
Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
pubmed: 21513547
pmcid: 3096582
Haack S. Evidence and Inquiry: towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. Volume 19. Wiley-Blackwell; 1993.
Kaushik V, Walsh CA. Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research. In: Social Sciences. vol. 8; 2019.
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER Tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43.
doi: 10.1177/1049732312452938
pubmed: 22829486
O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med 2014, 89(9).
Fleming J. Recognizing and resolving the challenges of being an insider researcher in work-integrated learning. Int J Work-Integrated Learn. 2018;19(3):311–20.
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are Enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.
doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903
Döring N, Bortz J. Forschungsmethoden und evaluation in den Sozial- Und Humanwissenschaften. 5 ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2016.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5
Gläser J, Laudel G. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen, 4. Auflage edn: Wiesbaden: VS Verlag; 2010.
Dresing T, Pehl T. Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse. Anleitungen Und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende. 8 ed. Marburg; 2018.
Nilsagård Y, Westerdahl E, Forsberg A. Engagement in performing clinical physiotherapy research: perspectives from leaders and physiotherapists. Physiotherapy Res Int. 2019;24(2):e1767.
doi: 10.1002/pri.1767
Liu H, Massi L, Eades AM, Howard K, Peiris D, Redfern J, Usherwood T, Cass A, Patel A, Jan S, et al. Implementing Kanyini GAP, a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in Australia: findings from a qualitative study. Trials. 2015;16:425.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0956-y
pubmed: 26399503
pmcid: 4581084
Ellen ME, Léon G, Bouchard G, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM, Lavis JN. Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):179.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0179-8
pubmed: 25476735
pmcid: 4299810
Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan BK, Gupta E, Ramakrishnan N, Beane A, Haniffa R, Lone N, de Keizer N, Adhikari NKJ. Barriers and facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5):e0266836.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266836
pubmed: 35511911
Evrard P, Pétein C, Beuscart JB, Spinewine A. Barriers and enablers for deprescribing benzodiazepine receptor agonists in older adults: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies using the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):41.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01206-7
pubmed: 35804428
van Dijk H, Köke AJA, Elbers S, Mollema J, Smeets R, Wittink H. Physiotherapists using the Biopsychosocial Model for Chronic Pain: barriers and Facilitators-A scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023, 20(2).
McLellan JM, O’Carroll RE, Cheyne H, Dombrowski SU. Investigating midwives’ barriers and facilitators to multiple health promotion practice behaviours: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):64.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0913-3
pubmed: 31215450
pmcid: 6582467
The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural, Research G. Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):4.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-4
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33.
doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
pubmed: 15692000
pmcid: 1743963
Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(2):107–12.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.002
pubmed: 15680740
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321(7262):694–6.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694
pubmed: 10987780
pmcid: 1118564
West R, Michie S. A brief introduction to the COM-B Model of behaviour and the PRIME Theory of motivation. Qeios 2020.
West R, Brown J. Theory of addiction. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013.