Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31401590›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Implementing professional behaviour change in teams under pressure: results from phase one of a prospective process evaluation (the

Mike Bracher, Katherine Steward, Kathy Wallis, Carl R May, Annemarie Aburrow, Jane Murphy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mike BracherSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK m.j.bracher@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5861-2657
Katherine StewardSouthern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Kathy WallisWessex Academic Health Science Network (AHSN), Southampton, UK.
Carl R MayFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Annemarie AburrowWessex Academic Health Science Network (AHSN), Southampton, UK.
Jane MurphyDepartment of Human Sciences & Public Health, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Wessex Academic Health Science Network (United Kingdom) · GBBournemouth University · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSouthern Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition for older people in community settings and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation as a routine aspect of care.

designProspective process evaluation using mixed methods with pre/post-implementation measures. SETTING AND

participantsCommunity teams (nursing and allied health professionals) within a UK National Health Service Community Trust. 73 participants were recruited, of which 32 completed both pre-implemetation and post-implementation surveys.

main outcome measuresNoMAD survey for pre-post-intervention measures; telephone interviews exploring participant experiences and wider organisational/contextual processes.

methodsData prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0-survey and telephone interview) and 2 months following training (T1-follow-up survey). Quantitative data described using frequency tables reporting team type, healthcare provider role group and total study sample; analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum (subgroup comparison) and Wilcoxon signed-rank (within-group observation point comparison) tests. Qualitative interview data (audio and transcription) analysed through directed content analysis using normalisation process theory.

resultsHigh support for nutrition screening and treatment indicated by participants. Concerns expressed around logistical, organisational and specialist dietetic support. Pre-post-training measures indicated a positive impact of training on knowledge of the new procedure; however, most implementation measures saw no significant changes between time points or between subgroups (training participants vs non-participants). Implementation barriers included the following: high levels of training non-completion; vulnerability to attrition of trained staff; lack of monitoring of post-intervention compliance and lack of access to dietetic support.

conclusionGreater support necessary to support implementation in relation to monitoring of training completion, and organisational support for nutrition screening and treatment activity. Recommended changes to implementation design are as follows: appointment of a key person to support and monitor procedure compliance; adoption of training as an e-learning module within the existing organisational platform to increase participation in changeable working conditions.

Indexed as

Health Services for the AgedAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunity Health ServicesHumansInterviews as TopicMalnutritionMass ScreeningProgram EvaluationProspective StudiesUnited Kingdomcommunity careimplementationmalnutritionnormalisation process theorynutritionprocess evaluationscreening

Identifiers

PMID31401590
PMCPMC6701590
OpenAlexW2965701641

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.