Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38389093›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Understanding implementation of findings from trial method research: a mixed methods study applying implementation frameworks and behaviour change models.

Taylor Coffey, Paula R Williamson, Katie Gillies, Trials Methodology Research Partnership Working Groups

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. 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

4 authors.

Taylor CoffeyHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Services Research Unit, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. taylor.coffey1@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6921-8230
Paula R WilliamsonDepartment of Health Data Science, MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Services Research Unit, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Trials Methodology Research Partnership Working Groups

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S014357/1MRC-NIHR funded Trials Methodology Research Partnership MR/S014357/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrial method research produces recommendations on how to best conduct trials. However, findings are not routinely implemented into practice. To better understand why, we conducted a mixed method study on the challenges of implementing trial method research findings into UK-based clinical trial units.

methodsThree stages of research were conducted. Firstly, case studies of completed projects that provided methodological recommendations were identified within trial design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. These case studies were used as survey examples to query obstacles and facilitators to implementing method research. Survey participants were experienced trial staff, identified via email invitations to UK clinical trial units. This survey assessed the case studies' rates of implementation, and demographic characteristics of trial units through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Further, interviews were conducted with senior members of trial units to explore obstacles and facilitators in more detail. Participants were sampled from trial units that indicated their willingness to participate in interviews following the survey. Interviews, and analysis, were structured via the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behaviour. Finally, potential strategies to leverage lessons learned were generated via the Behaviour Change Wheel.

resultsA total of 27 UK trial units responded to the survey. The rates of implementation across the case studies varied, with most trial units implementing recommendations in trial conduct and only few implementing recommendations in reporting. However, most reported implementing recommendations was important but that they lacked the resources to do so. A total of 16 senior members of trial units were interviewed. Several themes were generated from interviews and fell broadly into categories related to the methods recommendations themselves, the trial units, or external factors affecting implementation. Belief statements within themes indicated resources issues and awareness of recommendations as frequent implementation obstacles. Participation in trial networks and recommendations packaged with relevant resources were cited frequently as implementation facilitators. These obstacles and facilitators mirrored results from the survey. Results were mapped, via the Behaviour Change Wheel, to intervention functions likely to change behaviours of obstacles and facilitators identified. These intervention functions were developed into potential solutions to reduce obstacles and enhance facilitators to implementation.

conclusionsSeveral key areas affecting implementation of trial method recommendations were identified. Potential methods to enhance facilitators and reduce obstacles are suggested. Future research is needed to refine these methods and assess their feasibility and acceptability.

Indexed as

MotivationResearch DesignClinical Trials as TopicHumansQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesImplementation scienceTrial method research

Identifiers

PMID38389093
PMCPMC10885447

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.