Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30140439›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2018

Staff experiences with strategic implementation of clinical health promotion: A nested qualitative study in the WHO-HPH Recognition Process RCT.

Jeff Kirk Svane, Ingrid Egerod, Hanne Tønnesen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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.

Jeff Kirk SvaneWHO Collaborating Center (WHO-CC)/Clinical Health Promotion Center, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7816-211X
Ingrid EgerodIntensive Care Unit, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hanne TønnesenWHO Collaborating Center (WHO-CC)/Clinical Health Promotion Center, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark.

Funding

Gender Differences in Responses to Caffeine in Children and AdolescentsR01DA030386 · NIDA · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI TEMPLE, JENNIFER L · 2011 to 2015
$1.7M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA030386
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth promotion is on the global agenda. The risks targeted include smoking, hazardous alcohol consumption, nutrition and insufficient physical activity. Implementation of clinical health promotion, however, remains a major challenge. While several processes, models and frameworks for strategic implementation exist, very few have been tested in randomized designs. Testing a strategic implementation process for clinical health promotion was only recently attempted via a randomized clinical trial on the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals Recognition Process. The randomized clinical trial showed that the process improved central parts of implementation. To complement these findings, this nested qualitative study aimed to explore experiences and perceptions of staff and managers, who had completed the process, and generate hypotheses for improvements.

methodsWe interviewed a purposeful sample of 45 key informants from four countries, who worked at clinical departments and had undertaken the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals implementation process. The informants included 14 managers, 14 medical doctors, 13 nurses and 4 other clinical staff. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and an inductive approach to coding and categorization supported by QSR NVivo.

resultsThe informants' experiences and perceptions centered around four global themes concerning (1) awareness, cultural re-orientation and integration; (2) learnings; (3) normalization and legitimacy and (4) a more evidence-based, structured and systematic approach to clinical health promotion. Informants were positive toward the implementation process, although it was sometimes challenging. The suggested improvements to increase acceptability related to the patient survey, time consumption, translation, tailoring to local circumstances and in-advance training.

conclusionsManagers and staff were positive toward the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals process, which was perceived to bring about positive changes and learnings. The findings also suggest that the implementation process may be improved by minor adjustments to process elements and design. It is our recommendation to use the process in clinical departments to further implementation of clinical health promotion.

Indexed as

clinical health promotionhealthcare staffhealth promoting hospitalsImplementationquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30140439
PMCPMC6094165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.