ArticleImplementation science communications2024
Exploring implementation of intrapartum trial evidence: a qualitative study with clinicians and clinical academics.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementing research evidence into clinical practice is challenging. This study aim was to explore implementation of two intrapartum trials with compelling findings: BUMPES (position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with epidural), and RESPITE (remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia).
methodsA qualitative interview study set in UK National Health Service Trusts and Universities. Purposively sampled investigators from RESPITE and BUMPES trials and clinicians providing intrapartum care: midwives, anaesthetists, and obstetricians, were recruited using existing networks and snowball sampling. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis was underpinned by Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour Change Framework.
resultsTwenty-nine interview participants across 19 maternity units: 11 clinical academics, 10 midwives, 4 obstetricians, 4 anaesthetists. Most (25/29) were aware of one or both trials. BUMPES had been implemented in 4/19 units (one original trial site) and RESPITE in 3/19 units (two trial sites). Access to sufficient resources, training, exposure to interventions, support from leaders, and post-trial dissemination and implementation activities all facilitated uptake of interventions. Some clinicians were opposed to the intervention or disagreed with trial conclusions. However competing priorities in terms of staff time and a plethora of initiatives in maternity care, emerged as a key barrier to implementation.
conclusionsCompelling trial findings were not implemented widely, and numerous barriers and facilitators were identified. Large-scale improvement programmes and evidence-based national guidelines may mean single trials have limited potential to change practice. There is a need to examine how intervention implementation is prioritised to optimise safety outcomes in the context of workforce restrictions, limited resources and large arrays of competing priorities including statutory requirements, that have increased in maternity care.
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.