Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30030321›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Care home resident and staff perceptions of the acceptability of nutrition intervention trial procedures: a qualitative study embedded within a cluster randomised feasibility trial.

Ruth Elizabeth Stow, Christina H Smith, Alison B Rushton

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth Elizabeth StowSchool of Health Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK.
Christina H SmithLanguage and Cognition, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Alison B RushtonCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8114-7669
Birmingham City University · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine care home resident and staff perceptions of the acceptability of participating in a feasibility trial evaluating nutritional interventions in the treatment of malnutrition.

designExploratory qualitative methodology was used to gather descriptions of resident and staff perceptions of trial procedures, using semi-structured interviews with residents and focus groups with staff. The interviews were used to explore individual perceptions of the acceptability of the assigned intervention and the outcomes measured. Focus groups were used to explore staff experiences of trial participation and perspectives of nutritional support interventions.

settingThe study was embedded within a cluster randomised feasibility trial, which randomised six care homes to provide standard care (SC), food-based (FB) intervention or oral nutritional supplement (ONS) intervention to residents with, or at risk of, malnutrition.

participantsResidents in the trial with capacity to consent (n=7) formed the sampling frame for inclusion. Four agreed to be approached by the researcher and to take part in the individual interviews. All were women, representing two arms of the trial (ONS and SC). Twelve staff participated in six focus groups, one at each care home. All participants were women, representing all three arms of the trial.

resultsMajor themes that emerged from both interviews and focus groups included the perceived acceptability of trial involvement, the value of residents completing participant-reported outcome measures and the challenges associated with outcomes measurement in this setting. Themes that emerged from the focus groups alone, included the importance of individualising an intervention, and the perceived value of FB and ONS interventions and dietetic input.

conclusionsResidents and staff perceived involvement in a trial evaluating nutritional interventions to be acceptable, although the challenges associated with research in this setting were acknowledged. Resident preferences were highlighted by staff as an important consideration when implementing a nutrition support plan. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN38047922.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentHomes for the AgedQualitative ResearchResidential FacilitiesAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelDietary ServicesEnteral NutritionFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleNutritional StatusProtein-Energy Malnutritioncare homesfocus groupsgeriatric medicinemalnutritionolder adults

Identifiers

PMID30030321
PMCPMC6059282
OpenAlexW2883175756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.