Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22453077›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2012

FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence): a study protocol.

Kate Seers, Karen Cox, Nicola J Crichton, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Ann Catrine Eldh, Carole A Estabrooks, Gill Harvey, Claire Hawkes, Alison Kitson, Pat Linck and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
25.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Kate SeersRoyal College of Nursing Research Institute, School of Health and Social Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. kate.seers@warwick.ac.uk
Karen Cox
Nicola J Crichton
Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
Ann Catrine Eldh
Carole A Estabrooks
Gill Harvey
Claire Hawkes
Alison Kitson
Pat Linck
Geraldine McCarthy
Brendan McCormack
Carole Mockford
Jo Rycroft-Malone
Angie Titchen
Lars Wallin
Bangor University · GBFontys University of Applied Sciences · NLKarolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SELondon South Bank University · GBRoyal College of Nursing · GBUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Ulster · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids.

objectivesThis study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence METHODS AND

designPragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisData CollectionDermatitisDiffusion of InnovationEvidence-Based MedicineFeasibility StudiesHumansMiddle AgedQuality of LifeSample SizeTreatment OutcomeUrinary IncontinenceUrinary Tract Infections

Identifiers

PMID22453077
PMCPMC3356232
OpenAlexW2138604363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.