Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22879574›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2012

Addressing methodological challenges in implementing the nursing home pain management algorithm randomized controlled trial.

Mary Ersek, Nayak Polissar, Anna Du Pen, Anita Jablonski, Keela Herr, Moni B Neradilek

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Algorithm-based pain management for people with dementia in nursing homes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Mary ErsekPhiladelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6096, USA. ersekm@nursing.upenn.edu
Nayak Polissar
Anna Du Pen
Anita Jablonski
Keela Herr
Moni B Neradilek

Funding

Nursing Home Pain Management Algorithm Clinical TrialR01NR009100 · NINR · SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER, FIRST HILL · PI ERSEK, MARY · 2005 to 2009
$2.2M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR009100NINR NIH HHS R01NR009100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnrelieved pain among nursing home (NH) residents is a well-documented problem. Attempts have been made to enhance pain management for older adults, including those in NHs. Several evidence-based clinical guidelines have been published to assist providers in assessing and managing acute and chronic pain in older adults. Despite the proliferation and dissemination of these practice guidelines, research has shown that intensive systems-level implementation strategies are necessary to change clinical practice and patient outcomes within a health-care setting. One promising approach is the embedding of guidelines into explicit protocols and algorithms to enhance decision making. PURPOSE: The goal of the article is to describe several issues that arose in the design and conduct of a study that compared the effectiveness of pain management algorithms coupled with a comprehensive adoption program versus the effectiveness of education alone in improving evidence-based pain assessment and management practices, decreasing pain and depressive symptoms, and enhancing mobility among NH residents.

methodsThe study used a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) design in which the individual NH was the unit of randomization. The Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory provided the framework for the intervention. Outcome measures were surrogate-reported usual pain, self-reported usual and worst pain, and self-reported pain-related interference with activities, depression, and mobility.

resultsThe final sample consisted of 485 NH residents from 27 NHs. The investigators were able to use a staggered enrollment strategy to recruit and retain facilities. The adaptive randomization procedures were successful in balancing intervention and control sites on key NH characteristics. Several strategies were successfully implemented to enhance the adoption of the algorithm. LIMITATIONS/LESSONS: The investigators encountered several methodological challenges that were inherent to both the design and implementation of the study. The most problematic issue concerned the measurement of outcomes in persons with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. It was difficult to identify valid, reliable, and sensitive outcome measures that could be applied to all NH residents regardless of the ability to self-report. Another challenge was the inability to incorporate advances in implementation science into the ongoing study

conclusionsMethodological challenges are inevitable in the conduct of an RCT. The need to optimize internal validity by adhering to the study protocol is compromised by the emergent logistical issues that arise during the course of the study.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsAgedAlgorithmsDecision MakingGuideline AdherenceHomes for the AgedHumansInservice TrainingNursing HomesPain ManagementPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID22879574
PMCPMC4426859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.