Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32540886›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Understanding implementation success: protocol for an in-depth, mixed-methods process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial testing methods to improve detection of Lynch syndrome in Australian hospitals.

April Morrow, Katherine M Tucker, Tim J Shaw, Bonny Parkinson, Charles Abraham, Luke Wolfenden, Natalie Taylor

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

April MorrowCancer Council New South Wales, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales, Australia april.morrow@nswcc.org.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0714-363X
Katherine M TuckerHereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital and Community Health Services, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
Tim J ShawResearch in Implementation Science and eHealth (RISe), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Bonny ParkinsonThe Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia.
Charles AbrahamMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Luke WolfendenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Natalie TaylorCancer Council New South Wales, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0280-0883
The University of Sydney · AUMacquarie University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn multisite intervention trials, implementation success often varies widely across settings. Process evaluations are crucial to interpreting trial outcomes and understanding contextual factors and causal chains necessary for successful implementation. Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer predisposition conferring an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancer types. Despite systematic screening protocols to identify Lynch syndrome, the condition remains largely underdiagnosed. The Hide and Seek Project ('HaSP') is a cluster randomised controlled trial determining the effectiveness of two approaches to improving Lynch syndrome detection at eight Australian hospital networks. To enhance widespread implementation of optimal Lynch syndrome identification, there is a need to understand not only what works, but also why, in what contexts, and at what costs. Here we describe an in-depth investigation of factors influencing successful implementation of procedures evaluated in the HaSP trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods, theory-driven process evaluation will be undertaken in parallel to the HaSP trial. Data will include: interviews of Implementation Leads and Lynch syndrome stakeholders, pre-post implementation questionnaires, audio analysis of meetings and focus groups, observation of multidisciplinary team meetings, fidelity checklists and project log analysis. Results will be triangulated and coded, drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Proctor's implementation outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Use of a theory-based process evaluation will enhance interpretation and generalisability of HaSP trial findings, and contribute to the implementation research field by furthering understanding of the conditions necessary for implementation success. Ethical approval has been granted and results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. At trial completion, key findings will be fed back to sites to enable refinement of intervention strategies, both in the context of Lynch syndrome and for the possible generalisability of intervention components in other genetic and broader clinical specialties. HASP TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Identifier: ACTRN12618001072202). Registered 27 June 2018. http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618001072202.aspx.

Indexed as

Process Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementAustraliaCluster AnalysisColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designgenetic testingimplementationlynch syndromeprocess evaluationtheoretical domains framework

Identifiers

PMID32540886
PMCPMC7299044
OpenAlexW3034670618

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.