Trial reportImplementation science : IS2012
A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions.
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 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.
- Training and education provided to local change champions within implementation trials: a rapid systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Pooled it
- Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to promote the uptake of their guidelines.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- How Well Is Quality Improvement Described in the Perioperative Care Literature? A Systematic Review.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2016Pooled it
- 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.Implementation science : IS · 2018Trial
- Implementing an Injury Prevention Briefing to aid delivery of key fire safety messages in UK children's centres: qualitative study nested within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2014Trial
- The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- How Culture Enables Practice: Facilitators and Barriers to the Use of Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Pediatric Anesthesia.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Implementation science promotes clinical practice of guidelines: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Mapping Implementation Strategies and Outcomes When Using Evidence Based Practice Implementation Models in Nursing Settings: A Scoping Review.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- The Implementation in Context (ICON) Framework: A meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Mapping research findings on change implementation in nursing practice: A scoping literature review.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- Process evaluations undertaken alongside randomised controlled trials in the hospital setting: A scoping review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Physicians' perceptions and preferences for implementing venous thromboembolism (VTE) clinical practice guidelines: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature.Implementation science : IS · 2020Review
- Quality improvement in mental health services.BJPsych bulletin · 2020Article
- Perceptions of physicians in Saudi Arabia on the use of international clinical guidelines for managing primary insomnia.PloS one · 2019Article
- Shedding light on conditions for the successful passive dissemination of recommendations in primary care: a mixed methods study.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.
methodsA pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.
resultsNineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.
conclusionsThis was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.
trial registrationISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.