Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23176444›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2012

"Push" versus "Pull" for mobilizing pain evidence into practice across different health professions: a protocol for a randomized trial.

Joy C MacDermid, Mary Law, Norman Buckley, Robert Brian Haynes

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01348802 (A Randomized Trial Comparing "Push" Versus "Pull" Technology for Mobilizing Pain Evidence Into Practice Across Different Health Professions), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT01348802 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomized Trial Comparing "Push" Versus "Pull" Technology for Mobilizing Pain Evidence Into Practice Across Different Health Professions

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2011 to 2015Enrolled675ConditionsPainArmsPush + Pull, Pull
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reviewing opioid use, monitoring, and legislature: Nursing perspectives.International journal of nursing sciences · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Joy C MacDermidSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. macderj@mcmaster.ca
Mary Law
Norman Buckley
Robert Brian Haynes

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimizing pain care requires ready access and use of best evidence within and across different disciplines and settings. The purpose of this randomized trial is to determine whether a technology-based "push" of new, high-quality pain research to physicians, nurses, and rehabilitation and psychology professionals results in better knowledge and clinical decision making around pain, when offered in addition to traditional "pull" evidence technology. A secondary objective is to identify disciplinary variations in response to evidence and differences in the patterns of accessing research evidence.

methodsPhysicians, nurses, occupational/physical therapists, and psychologists (n = 670) will be randomly allocated in a crossover design to receive a pain evidence resource in one of two different ways. Evidence is extracted from medical, nursing, psychology, and rehabilitation journals; appraised for quality/relevance; and sent out (PUSHed) to clinicians by email alerts or available for searches of the accumulated database (PULL). Participants are allocated to either PULL or PUSH + PULL in a randomized crossover design. The PULL intervention has a similar interface but does not send alerts; clinicians can only go to the site and enter search terms to retrieve evidence from the cumulative and continuously updated online database. Upon entry to the trial, there is three months of access to PULL, then random allocation. After six months, crossover takes place. The study ends with a final three months of access to PUSH + PULL. The primary outcomes are uptake and application of evidence. Uptake will be determined by embedded tracking of what research is accessed during use of the intervention. A random subset of 30 participants/ discipline will undergo chart-stimulated recall to assess the nature and depth of evidence utilization in actual case management at baseline and 9 months. A different random subset of 30 participants/ discipline will be tested for their skills in accessing evidence using a standardized simulation test (final 3 months). Secondary outcomes include usage and self-reported evidence-based practice attitudes and behaviors measured at baseline, 3, 9, 15 and 18 months. DISCUSSION: The trial will inform our understanding of information preferences and behaviors across disciplines/practice settings. If this intervention is effective, sustained support will be sought from professional/health system initiatives with an interest in optimizing pain management.

trial registrationRegistered as NCT01348802 on clinicaltrials.gov.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsDecision MakingBehaviorCognitionCross-Over StudiesEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansPain ManagementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID23176444
PMCPMC3520813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.