ArticleImplementation science : IS2016
Use of the Theoretical Domains Framework to evaluate factors driving successful implementation of the Accelerated Chest pain Risk Evaluation (ACRE) project.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Equity Dashboards in a Statewide Surgical Quality Collaborative: A Mixed Methods Pre-Implementation Study.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Exploring enablers and barriers to implementing the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines: a theory-based survey of journal editors.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- The Barriers to Rapid Reperfusion in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Cardiology and therapy · 2022Article
- Use of the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore factors influencing paediatric fever management practices and antipyretic use in New Zealand emergency departments.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2022Article
- Objective risk assessment vs standard care for acute coronary syndromes-The Australian GRACE Risk tool Implementation Study (AGRIS): a process evaluation.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Choice of methods can determine which behavioral determinates are identified for targeting in future behavior change interventions: Increasing antibiotic adherence in Pakistan.Journal of health psychology · 2022Article
- Article
- What it takes to build a health services innovation training program.International journal of medical education · 2021Article
- Using Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand implementation of a pragmatic clinical trial in Public Dental Service in Norway.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Article
- Facilitators and barriers for emergency department clinicians using a rapid chest pain assessment protocol: qualitative interview research.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Community pharmacists' views of using a screening tool to structure medicines use reviews for older people: findings from qualitative interviews.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- Overcoming our nature and nurture.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe translation of healthcare research into practice is typically challenging and limited in effectiveness. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) identifies 12 domains of behaviour determinants which can be used to understand the principles of behavioural change, a key factor influencing implementation. The Accelerated Chest pain Risk Evaluation (ACRE) project has successfully translated research into practice, by implementing an intervention to improve the assessment of low to intermediate risk patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with chest pain. The aims of this paper are to describe use of the TDF to determine which factors successfully influenced implementation and to describe use of the TDF as a tool to evaluate implementation efforts and which domains are most relevant to successful implementation.
methodsA 30-item questionnaire targeting clinicians was developed using the TDF as a guide. Questions encompassed ten of the domains of the TDF: Knowledge; Skills; Social/professional role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Optimism; Beliefs about consequences; Intentions; Memory, attention and decision processes; Environmental context and resources; and Social influences.
resultsSixty-three of 176 stakeholders (36 %) responded to the questionnaire. Responses for all scales showed that respondents were highly favourable to all aspects of the implementation. Scales with the highest mean responses were Intentions, Knowledge, and Optimism, suggesting that initial education and awareness strategies around the ACRE project were effective. Scales with the lowest mean responses were Environmental context and resources, and Social influences, perhaps highlighting that implementation planning could have benefitted from further consideration of the factors underlying these scales.
conclusionsThe ACRE project was successful, and therefore, a perfect case study for understanding factors which drive implementation success. The overwhelmingly positive response suggests that it was a successful programme and likely that each of these domains was important for the implementation. However, a lack of variance in the responses hampered us from concluding which factors were most influential in driving the success of the implementation. The TDF offers a useful framework to conceptualise and evaluate factors impacting on implementation success. However, its broad scope makes it necessary to tailor the framework to allow evaluation of specific projects.
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.