Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31046788›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2019

A novel counterbalanced implementation study design: methodological description and application to implementation research.

Mitchell N Sarkies, Elizabeth H Skinner, Kelly-Ann Bowles, Meg E Morris, Cylie Williams, Lisa O'Brien, Anne Bardoel, Jenny Martin, Anne E Holland, Leeanne Carey and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mitchell N SarkiesSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Building G Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia. mitchell.sarkies@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7318-3598
Elizabeth H SkinnerAllied Health Research Unit, Monash Health, 400 Warrigal Road, Cheltenham, Victoria, 3092, Australia.
Kelly-Ann BowlesDepartment of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University, Building H Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia.
Meg E MorrisLa Trobe Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine Research, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Cylie WilliamsPeninsula Health, 4 Hastings Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia.
Lisa O'BrienDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Monash University, Building G Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia.
Anne BardoelDepartment of Management and Marketing, Swinburne University, BA Buidling John Street, Hawthorn Campus, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122, Australia.
Jenny MartinSwinburne University, John Street, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122, Australia.
Anne E HollandAlfred Health and La Trobe University, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.
Leeanne CareyOccupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Jennifer WhiteSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Building G Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia.
Terry P HainesSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Building G Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia.
Monash University · AULa Trobe University · AUMonash Health · AUSwinburne University of Technology · AUPeninsula Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation research is increasingly being recognised for optimising the outcomes of clinical practice. Frequently, the benefits of new evidence are not implemented due to the difficulties applying traditional research methodologies to implementation settings. Randomised controlled trials are not always practical for the implementation phase of knowledge transfer, as differences between individual and organisational readiness for change combined with small sample sizes can lead to imbalances in factors that impede or facilitate change between intervention and control groups. Within-cluster repeated measure designs could control for variance between intervention and control groups by allowing the same clusters to receive a sequence of conditions. Although in implementation settings, they can contaminate the intervention and control groups after the initial exposure to interventions. We propose the novel application of counterbalanced design to implementation research where repeated measures are employed through crossover, but contamination is averted by counterbalancing different health contexts in which to test the implementation strategy.

methodsIn a counterbalanced implementation study, the implementation strategy (independent variable) has two or more levels evaluated across an equivalent number of health contexts (e.g. community-acquired pneumonia and nutrition for critically ill patients) using the same outcome (dependent variable). This design limits each cluster to one distinct strategy related to one specific context, and therefore does not overburden any cluster to more than one focussed implementation strategy for a particular outcome, and provides a ready-made control comparison, holding fixed. The different levels of the independent variable can be delivered concurrently because each level uses a different health context within each cluster to avoid the effect of treatment contamination from exposure to the intervention or control condition.

resultsAn example application of the counterbalanced implementation design is presented in a hypothetical study to demonstrate the comparison of 'video-based' and 'written-based' evidence summary research implementation strategies for changing clinical practice in community-acquired pneumonia and nutrition in critically ill patient health contexts.

conclusionA counterbalanced implementation study design provides a promising model for concurrently investigating the success of research implementation strategies across multiple health context areas such as community-acquired pneumonia and nutrition for critically ill patients.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessImplementation ScienceNutritional SupportResearch DesignCommunity-Acquired InfectionsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPneumoniaVideo RecordingContextCounterbalancedCrossoverDesignImplementationMethodRandomised controlled trialResearchStrategyStudy

Identifiers

PMID31046788
PMCPMC6498461
OpenAlexW2947004505

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.