Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36925884›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2022

Supporting care home residents in the last year of life through 'Needs Rounds': Development of a pre-implementation programme theory through a rapid collaborative online approach.

Aisha Macgregor, Brendan McCormack, Karen Spilsbury, Jo Hockley, Alasdair Rutherford, Margaret Ogden, Irene Soulsby, Maisie McKenzie, Barbara Hanratty, Liz Forbat

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Aisha MacgregorFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.
Brendan McCormackSusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Karen SpilsburySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Jo HockleyCollege of Medicine and Veterinary Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
Alasdair RutherfordFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.
Margaret OgdenPPI lay Member.
Irene SoulsbyPPI lay Member.
Maisie McKenziePPI lay Member.
Barbara HanrattyFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Newcastle, England.
Liz ForbatFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Realist evaluation aims to address the knowledge to practice gap by explaining how an intervention is expected to work, as well as what is likely to impact upon the success of its implementation, by developing programme theories that link contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Co-production approaches to the development of programme theories offer substantial benefits in addressing power relations, including and valuing different types of knowledge, and promoting buy-in from stakeholders while navigating the complex social systems in which innovations are embedded. This paper describes the co-production of an initial programme theory of how an evidence based intervention developed in Australia - called 'Palliative Care Needs Rounds' - might work in England and Scotland to support care home residents approaching their end of life. Methods: Using realist evaluation and iPARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) we sought to determine how contexts and mechanisms of change might shape implementation outcomes. Pre-intervention online interviews ( Results: This methodology paper reports developments in realist evaluation and co-production methodologies, and how they were used to develop context, mechanisms, outcomes (CMOs) configurations, and chains of inference. The initial (pre-intervention) programme theory is used to illustrate this process. Two developments to iPARIHS are described. First, involving stakeholders in the collaborative co-design workshops created opportunities to commence facilitation. Second, we describe developing iPARIHS' Conclusions: This rapid and robust co-production methodology draws on interactive collaborative research practices (interviews, workshop discussions of data, illustrative vignettes and visual methods). These innovative and engaging methods can be packaged for online processes to develop, describe and interrogate the CMOs in order to co-produce a programme theory. These approaches also commence facilitation and innovation, and can be adopted in other implementation science and realist studies.

Indexed as

care homesco-productionend of lifeengagementhospiceiPARIHSpalliative caretheory development

Identifiers

PMID36925884
PMCPMC10012649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.