Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32000768›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2020

Pilot trial of The Living Well Toolkit: qualitative analysis and implications for refinement and future implementation.

Suzie Mudge, Ann Sezier, Deborah Payne, Greta Smith, Nicola Kayes

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2020. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

5 authors.

Suzie MudgeCentre for Person Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. suzie.mudge@aut.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3106-6777
Ann SezierCentre for Person Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Deborah PayneCentre for Person Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Greta SmithCentre for Person Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Nicola KayesCentre for Person Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

Health Research Council of New Zealand 13/285
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing a neurological event, people's long-term health and well-being is hampered by a system that struggles to deliver person-centred communication and coordinated care and fails to harness individual and family capability to live well with the condition. We aimed to implement and evaluate a toolkit package to support these processes for people with long-term neurological conditions.

methodsThis is a multi-phased study drawing on the principles of participatory research. In this pilot phase, the toolkit package was introduced to clinicians, who introduced it to clients in four neurorehabilitation settings (inpatient and community-based). Individual and focus group interviews were carried out with clients (n = 10) and clinicians (n = 9). Data were categorised by the four components of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), and data within each component was then coded inductively. This analysis was used to inform revisions to the toolkit package and wider implementation processes.

resultsThere was widespread support for the principles underpinning the toolkit package from clients and clinicians. However, it was less clear how the client toolkit could support these principles in clinical practice which impacted buy-in. The flexibility of use of the client toolkit, which we encouraged, made it difficult for clinicians and clients to be clear about its purpose and for clinicians to operationalise in practice. Clinicians and clients identified a number of barriers that limited the time, energy and work users were able or prepared to invest, to the extent that uptake of the toolkit package was modest. Use of the toolkit package appeared more likely when clinicians perceived it to augment existing processes (e.g. goal setting) rather than detract from 'doing' therapy. This analysis was used to inform revisions to the toolkit package, including simplification of the client toolkit, development of videos with examples of use and a modular and reflective training package for clinical services. The refinements were intended to improve sense-making and minimise the cognitive barriers associated with implementation of a new intervention.

conclusionUnderstanding how supporting the client toolkit could add value to the therapeutic encounter was necessary for clinicians to invest time and perceive the worth of the toolkit package.

trial registrationANZCTR: ACTRN12614000537651. Registered 21 May, 2014.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleNervous System DiseasesPatient-Centered CarePilot ProjectsQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeImplementationLong-term conditionsNormalisation process theoryPerson-centredToolkit

Identifiers

PMID32000768
PMCPMC6993322

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.