ArticleBMJ open2023
Clinicians' perspectives on planned interventions tested in the Otago MASTER feasibility trial: an implementation-based process evaluation study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study reports a process evaluation of the Otago MASTER (MAnagement of Subacromial disorders of The shouldER) feasibility trial. This mixed-methods, process evaluation study was conducted parallel to the Otago MASTER feasibility trial. Our aims were to investigate: (1) supervised treatment fidelity of the interventions and (2) clinicians' perceptions of the trial interventions through a focus group.
designNested process evaluation study using a mixed-methods approach.
settingOutpatient clinic.
participantsFive clinicians (two men, three women) aged 47-67 years, with clinical experience of 18-43 years and a minimum of postgraduate certificate training, were involved with the delivery of interventions within the feasibility trial. We assessed treatment fidelity for supervised exercises through audit of clinicians' records and compared those with the planned protocol. Clinicians took part in a focus group that lasted for approximately 1 hour. The focus group was transcribed verbatim and focus group discussion was analysed thematically using an iterative approach.
resultsThe fidelity score for the tailored exercise and manual therapy intervention was 80.3% (SD: 7.7%) and for the standardised exercise intervention, 82.9% (SD: 5.9%). Clinicians' perspectives about the trial and planned intervention were summarised by one main theme 'conflict experienced between individual clinical practice and the intervention protocol', which was supported by three subthemes: (1) programme strengths and weaknesses; (2) design-related and administrative barriers; and (3) training-related barriers.
conclusionThis mixed-methods study assessed supervised treatment fidelity of interventions and clinicians' perceptions on planned interventions tested in the Otago MASTER feasibility trial. Overall, treatment fidelity was acceptable for both intervention arms; however, we observed low fidelity for certain domains within the tailored exercise and manual therapy intervention. Our focus group identified several barriers clinicians faced while delivering the planned interventions. Those findings are of relevance for planning the definite trial and for researchers conducting feasibility trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR: 12617001405303.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.