Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30249262›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

The barriers and facilitators to the implementation of National Clinical Programmes in Ireland: using the MRC framework for process evaluations.

Catherine D Darker, Gail H Nicolson, Aine Carroll, Joe M Barry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Improving healthcare workforce diversity.Frontiers in health services · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Catherine D DarkerDepartment of Public Health & Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Russell Centre, Tallaght Cross, Dublin, D24 DH74, Ireland. catherine.darker@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1561-7076
Gail H NicolsonDepartment of Public Health & Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Russell Centre, Tallaght Cross, Dublin, D24 DH74, Ireland.
Aine CarrollClinical Strategy and Programmes Division, Health Service Executive, Dr Steevens' Hospital, Steeven's Lane, Dublin, 8, D08 W2A8, Ireland.
Joe M BarryDepartment of Public Health & Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Russell Centre, Tallaght Cross, Dublin, D24 DH74, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA major healthcare reform agenda in Ireland is underway which underpins the establishment of a series of National Clinical Programmes (NCPs), which aim to take an evidence based approach to improve quality, access and value. The current study aimed to determine the enablers and barriers to implementation of the NCPs.

methodsA qualitative methodology advocated by the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework on conducting process evaluations of complex interventions guided this research. Purposive sampling techniques were used to recruit participants from seven NCPs across both acute and chronic healthcare domains, comprised of orthopaedics, rheumatology, elective surgery, emergency medicine, paediatrics, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A total of 33 participants were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Participants included current and previous Clinical Leads, Programme Managers, Health Service Executive management, hospital Chief Executive Officers, representatives of General Practice, and a Nursing and a Patient representative. Thematic analyses was conducted.

resultsA range of factors of different combinations and co-occurrence were highlighted across a total of six themes, including (i) positive leadership, governance and clinical networks of the NCPs, (ii) the political and social context in which the NCPs operate, (iii) constraints on resources, (iv) a passive attitudinal resistance to change borne from poor consultation and communication, (v) lack of data and information technology, (vi) forces outside of the NCPs such as the general practitioner contract thwarting change of the model of care.

conclusionsThe MRC framework proved a useful tool to conduct this process evaluation. Results from this research provide real world experiences and insight from the people charged with implementing large-scale health system improvement initiatives. The findings highlight the need for measured responses that acknowledge both direct and non-direct challenges and opportunities for successful change. Combined, it is recommended that these elements be considered in the planning and implementation of large-scale initiatives across healthcare delivery systems, both in Ireland and internationally.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformProcess Assessment, Health CareProgram DevelopmentQuality ImprovementAdvisory CommitteesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicIrelandMaleQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareHealthcareImplementationMRC frameworkProcess evaluationQualitative

Identifiers

PMID30249262
PMCPMC6154419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.