Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31699734›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Can implementation failure or intervention failure explain the result of the 3D multimorbidity trial in general practice: mixed-methods process evaluation.

Cindy Mann, Ali R G Shaw, Bruce Guthrie, Lesley Wye, Mei-See Man, Katherine Chaplin, Chris Salisbury

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Patient-centred innovation for multimorbidity care: a mixed-methods, randomised trial and qualitative study of the patients' experience.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Multimorbidity.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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.

Cindy MannCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK cindy.mann@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1256-1820
Ali R G ShawCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bruce GuthrieDivision of Population Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Lesley WyeCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Mei-See ManCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4948-5670
Katherine ChaplinCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1261-9938
Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4378-3960

Funding

Department of Health 12/130/15Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDuring a cluster randomised trial, (the 3D study) of an intervention enacting recommended care for people with multimorbidity, including continuity of care and comprehensive biennial reviews, we examined implementation fidelity to interpret the trial outcome and inform future implementation decisions.

designMixed-methods process evaluation using cross-trial data and a sample of practices, clinicians, administrators and patients. Interviews, focus groups and review observations were analysed thematically and integrated with quantitative data about implementation. Analysis was blind to trial outcomes and examined context, intervention adoption, reach and maintenance, and delivery of reviews to patients.

settingThirty-three UK general practices in three areas.

participantsThe trial included 1546 people with multimorbidity. 11 general practitioners, 14 nurses, 7 administrators and 38 patients from 9 of 16 intervention practices were sampled for an interview.

resultsStaff loss, practice size and different administrative strategies influenced implementation fidelity. Practices with whole administrative team involvement and good alignment between the intervention and usual care generally implemented better. Fewer reviews than intended were delivered (49% of patients receiving both intended reviews, 30% partially reviewed). In completed reviews >90% of intended components were delivered, but review observations and interviews with patients and clinicians found variation in style of component delivery, from 'tick-box' to patient-centred approaches. Implementation barriers included inadequate skills training to implement patient-centred care planning, but patients reported increased patient-centredness due to comprehensive reviews, extra time and being asked about their health concerns.

conclusionsImplementation failure contributed to lack of impact of the 3D intervention on the trial primary outcome (quality of life), but so did intervention failure since modifiable elements of intervention design were partially responsible. When a decisive distinction between implementation failure and intervention failure cannot be made, identifying potentially modifiable reasons for suboptimal implementation is important to enhance potential for impact and effectiveness of a redesigned intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06180958.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareGeneral PracticeMultimorbidityAdultAgedData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited Kingdomimplementation failureimplementation fidelityintervention failuremultimorbiditynull trialpatient-centredprimary careprocess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31699734
PMCPMC6858134

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.