Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30419934›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2018

What drives adoption of a computerised, multifaceted quality improvement intervention for cardiovascular disease management in primary healthcare settings? A mixed methods analysis using normalisation process theory.

Bindu Patel, Tim Usherwood, Mark Harris, Anushka Patel, Kathryn Panaretto, Nicholas Zwar, David Peiris

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bindu PatelThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. bpatel@georgeinstitute.org.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8410-6464
Tim UsherwoodUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mark HarrisUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anushka PatelThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kathryn PanarettoUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Nicholas ZwarUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David PeirisThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Queensland · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA computerised, multifaceted quality improvement (QI) intervention for cardiovascular disease (CVD) management in Australian primary healthcare was evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled trial. The intervention was associated with improved CVD risk factor screening but there was no improvement in prescribing rates of guideline-recommended medicines. The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation to identify and explain the underlying mechanisms by which the intervention did and did not have an impact. METHODS/

designNormalisation process theory (NPT) was used to understand factors that supported or constrained normalisation of the intervention into routine practice. A case study design was used in which six of the 30 participating intervention sites were purposively sampled to obtain a mix of size, governance, structure and performance. Multiple data sources were drawn on including trial outcome data, surveys of job satisfaction and team climate (68 staff) and in-depth interviews (19 staff). Data were primarily analysed within cases and compared with quantitative findings in other trial intervention and usual care sites.

resultsWe found a complex interaction between implementation processes and several contextual factors affecting uptake of the intervention. There was no clear association between team climate, job satisfaction and intervention outcomes. There were four spheres of influence that appeared to enhance or detract from normalisation of the intervention: organisational mission and history (e.g. strategic investment to promote a QI culture enhanced cognitive participation), leadership (e.g. ability to energise or demotivate others influenced coherence), team environment (e.g. synergistic activities of team members with different skill sets influenced collective action) and technical integrity of the intervention (e.g. tools that slowed computer systems limited reflective action). DISCUSSION: Use of NPT helped explain how certain contextual factors influence the work that is done by individuals and teams when implementing a novel intervention. Although these factors do not necessarily distil into a recipe for successful uptake, they may assist system planners, intervention developers, and health professionals to better understand the trajectory that primary health care services may take when developing and engaging with QI interventions.

trial registrationACTRN 12611000478910 . Registered 08 May 2011.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaCardiovascular DiseasesDecision Support Systems, ClinicalEnvironmentGroup ProcessesGuideline AdherenceHumansImplementation ScienceJob SatisfactionLeadershipOrganizational CulturePatient Care TeamPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareAdoptionHealth information technologyHealth serviceMixed methodsNormalisation process theoryPrimary healthcareProcess evaluationQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30419934
PMCPMC6233504
OpenAlexW2900921803

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.