Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30185584›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Improving the sustainability of hospital-based interventions: a study protocol for a systematic review.

Julie Cowie, Pauline Campbell, Elena Dimova, Avril Nicoll, Edward A S Duncan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. TheFrontiers in health services · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Julie CowieNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHPRU), Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4653-1283
Pauline CampbellNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHPRU), Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Elena DimovaFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Avril NicollNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHPRU), University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Edward A S DuncanNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHPRU), University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3400-905X

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CGA/17/26
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSustaining effective interventions in hospital environments is essential to improving health outcomes, and reducing research waste. Current evidence suggests many interventions are not sustained beyond their initial delivery. The reason for this failure remains unclear. Increasingly research is employing theoretical frameworks and models to identify critical factors that influence the implementation of interventions. However, little is known about the value of these frameworks on sustainability. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence regarding the use of theoretical frameworks to maximise effective intervention sustainability in hospital-based settings in order to better understand their role in supporting long-term intervention use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review. We will systematically search the following databases: Medline, AMED, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, HTA). We will also hand search relevant journals and will check the bibliographies of all included studies. Language and date limitations will be applied. We will include empirical studies that have used a theoretical framework (or model) and have explicitly reported the sustainability of an intervention (or programme). One reviewer will remove obviously irrelevant titles. The remaining abstracts and full-text articles will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine their eligibility for inclusion. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, and may involve a third reviewer if required. Key study characteristics will be extracted (study design, population demographics, setting, evidence of sustained change, use of theoretical frameworks and any barriers or facilitators data reported) by one reviewer and cross-checked by another reviewer. Descriptive data will be tabulated within evidence tables, and key findings will be brought together within a narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed journal publications, presentation at an international conference and social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017081992.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansQuality ImprovementResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topicchange managementorganisation of health servicesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID30185584
PMCPMC6129084

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.