liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE): an international cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate two models of facilitation informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework
Univ Warwick, England.
Bangor Univ, Wales.
Fontys Univ Appl Sci, Netherlands.
London South Bank Univ, England.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Implementation Science, ISSN 1748-5908, E-ISSN 1748-5908, Vol. 13, article id 137Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BackgroundHealth care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. This study used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework as its theoretical underpinning to test whether two different approaches to facilitating implementation could affect the use of research evidence in practice.MethodsA pragmatic clustered randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation was used. The study took place in four European countries across 24 long-term nursing care sites, for people aged 60years or more with documented urinary incontinence. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination, or one of two different types of facilitation. The primary outcome was the documented percentage compliance with the continence recommendations, assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24months after the intervention.Data were analysed using STATA15, multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models were fitted to scores for compliance with the continence recommendations, adjusting for clustering.ResultsQuantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (documented compliance with continence recommendations) between study arms and all study arms improved over time.ConclusionsThis was the first cross European randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation that sought to test different methods of facilitation. There were no statistically significant differences in compliance with continence recommendations between the groups. It was not possible to identify whether different types and doses of facilitation were influential within very diverse contextual conditions. The process evaluation (Rycroft-Malone et al., Implementation Science. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0) revealed the models of facilitation used were limited in their ability to overcome the influence of contextual factors.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502. Date 4/2/10.The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Unions Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 223646.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMC , 2018. Vol. 13, article id 137
Keywords [en]
Facilitation; Implementation; PARIHS; Urinary incontinence; Context; Older people; RCT
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-153164DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0831-9ISI: 000450649900001PubMedID: 30442174OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-153164DiVA, id: diva2:1267327
Note

Funding Agencies|European Union [223646]

Available from: 2018-12-01 Created: 2018-12-01 Last updated: 2019-03-22

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(435 kB)67 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 435 kBChecksum SHA-512
60c35f7284df58f87ace98901a03e7364ca90b5daf1423452396b29bb4881713c1b31921c0a3726eadeeabb7c4a46d4dbc60f16e37613e65ea32d11018de8732
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eldh, Ann Catrine
By organisation
Division of Nursing ScienceFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
In the same journal
Implementation Science
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 67 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 55 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf