ArticleImplementation science : IS2017
The evaluation of enhanced feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions (AFFINITIE): protocol for two linked cluster randomised factorial controlled trials.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health professionals' perceptions about their clinical performance and the influence of audit and feedback on their intentions to improve practice: a theory-based study in Dutch intensive care units.Implementation science : IS · 2018Trial
- Article
- A realist synthesis of multicentre comparative audit implementation: exploring what works and in which healthcare contexts.BMJ open quality · 2024Review
- Article
- Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of Enhanced Performance Feedback on Appropriate Use of Blood Transfusions: A Comparison of 2 Cluster Randomized Trials.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers.Journal of health services research & policy · 2022Article
- An Implementation Science Laboratory as One Approach to Whole System Improvement: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Designing and undertaking randomised implementation trials: guide for researchers.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods.Implementation science communications · 2020Article
- Use of a maternal newborn audit and feedback system in Ontario: a collective case study.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Implementation of the Recommendations for RBC Transfusions for Critically Ill Children From the Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2018Article
- How do hospitals respond to feedback about blood transfusion practice? A multiple case study investigation.PloS one · 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
15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBlood for transfusion is a frequently used clinical intervention, and is also a costly and limited resource with risks. Many transfusions are given to stable and non-bleeding patients despite no clear evidence of benefit from clinical studies. Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to improve the quality of healthcare, including appropriate use of blood. However, its effects are often inconsistent, indicating the need for coordinated research including more head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. A programmatic series of research projects, termed the 'Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE' (AFFINITIE) programme, aims to test different ways of developing and delivering feedback within an existing national audit structure.
methodsThe evaluation will comprise two linked 2×2 factorial, cross-sectional cluster-randomised controlled trials. Each trial will estimate the effects of two feedback interventions, 'enhanced content' and 'enhanced follow-on support', designed in earlier stages of the AFFINITIE programme, compared to current practice. The interventions will be embedded within two rounds of the UK National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion (NCABT) focusing on patient blood management in surgery and use of blood transfusions in patients with haematological malignancies. The unit of randomisation will be National Health Service (NHS) trust or health board. Clusters providing care relevant to the audit topics will be randomised following each baseline audit (separately for each trial), with stratification for size (volume of blood transfusions) and region (Regional Transfusion Committee). The primary outcome for each topic will be the proportion of patients receiving a transfusion coded as unnecessary. For each audit topic a linked, mixed-method fidelity assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted in parallel to the trial. DISCUSSION: AFFINITIE involves a series of studies to explore how A&F may be refined to change practice including two cluster randomised trials linked to national audits of transfusion practice. The methodology represents a step-wise increment in study design to more fully evaluate the effects of two enhanced feedback interventions on patient- and trust-level clinical, cost, safety and process outcomes.
trial registrationhttp://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15490813.
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.