Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30442165›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2018

A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: an exemplar.

Jo Rycroft-Malone, Kate Seers, Ann Catrine Eldh, Karen Cox, Nicola Crichton, Gill Harvey, Claire Hawkes, Alison Kitson, Brendan McCormack, Christel McMullan and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized 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 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Jo Rycroft-MaloneBangor Institute for Health and Medical Research, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK. j.rycroft-malone@bangor.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3858-5625
Kate SeersWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Ann Catrine EldhFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, Department of Nursing, Linkoping, and Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institutet, Linkopings University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karen CoxFontys School of People and Health Studies, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Nicola CrichtonSchool of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK.
Gill HarveyAdelaide Nursing School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Claire HawkesWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Alison KitsonCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Brendan McCormackDivision of Nursing, Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Christel McMullanInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Carole MockfordWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Theo NiessenFontys School of People and Health Studies, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Paul SlaterInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Shore Rd Belfast, Ulster, Northern Ireland.
Angie TitchenInstitute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Jordanstown, UK.
Teatske van der ZijppFontys School of People and Health Studies, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Lars WallinFaculty of Medicine and Health Science, Department of Nursing, Linkoping, and Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institutet, Linkopings University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fontys University of Applied Sciences · NLUniversity of Warwick · GBLinköping University · SEUniversity of Ulster · GBBangor University · GBFlinders University · AULondon South Bank University · GBQueen Margaret University · GBThe University of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFacilitation is a promising implementation intervention, which requires theory-informed evaluation. This paper presents an exemplar of a multi-country realist process evaluation that was embedded in the first international randomised controlled trial evaluating two types of facilitation for implementing urinary continence care recommendations. We aimed to uncover what worked (and did not work), for whom, how, why and in what circumstances during the process of implementing the facilitation interventions in practice.

methodsThis realist process evaluation included theory formulation, theory testing and refining. Data were collected in 24 care home sites across four European countries. Data were collected over four time points using multiple qualitative methods: observation (372 h), interviews with staff (n = 357), residents (n = 152), next of kin (n = 109) and other stakeholders (n = 128), supplemented by facilitator activity logs. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process focused on realist theory refinement and testing.

resultsThe content and approach of the two facilitation programmes prompted variable opportunities to align and realign support with the needs and expectations of facilitators and homes. This influenced their level of confidence in fulfilling the facilitator role and ability to deliver the intervention as planned. The success of intervention implementation was largely dependent on whether sites prioritised their involvement in both the study and the facilitation programme. In contexts where the study was prioritised (including release of resources) and where managers and staff support was sustained, this prompted collective engagement (as an attitude and action). Internal facilitators' (IF) personal characteristics and abilities, including personal and formal authority, in combination with a supportive environment prompted by managers triggered the potential for learning over time. Learning over time resulted in a sense of confidence and personal growth, and enactment of the facilitation role, which resulted in practice changes.

conclusionThe scale and multi-country nature of this study provided a novel context to conduct one of the few trial embedded realist-informed process evaluations. In addition to providing an explanatory account of implementation processes, a conceptual platform for future facilitation research is presented. Finally, a realist-informed process evaluation framework is outlined, which could inform future research of this nature.

trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN11598502 .

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overEuropeEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHealth Services ResearchHomes for the AgedHumansImplementation ScienceInservice TrainingInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNursing HomesOrganizational CultureProgram EvaluationContextFacilitationImplementationOlder peoplePARIHSRealist process evaluationUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID30442165
PMCPMC6238283
OpenAlexW2900458885

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.