ArticlePloS one2025
Insights into the implementation of a whole genome sequencing report form (SRF) to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 in UK hospitals within an unfolding pandemic: A qualitative process evaluation using normalisation process theory.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHere we report on a process evaluation conducted as part of a large multisite non-randomised trial of the effectiveness of a novel whole genome sequence report form (SRF) to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours during the COVID -19 pandemic. We detail how the SRF was implemented across a heterogeneous purposive sub-sample of hospital trial sites (n=5/14).
methodsWe conducted in-depth interviews from diverse professional staff (N=39). Deductive and inductive thematic analysis initially explored participants' accounts of implementing the SRF. The resulting themes, concerning the way the SRF was used within sites, were then coded in relation to the key tenets of normalisation process theory (NPT).
resultsFactors that enabled the implementation of the SRF included: elements of the context such as health care professional passion; the existence of whole genome sequencing (WGS) infrastructure; effective communication channels, the creation of new connections across professionals and teams; the integration of SRF-led discussions within pre-existing meetings and the ability of a site to achieve a rapid turnaround time. In contrast, we found factors that constrained the use of the SRF included elements of the context such as the impact of the Alpha-variant overwhelming hospitals. In turn, dealing with COVID-19 breached the limited capacity of infection prevention and control (IPC) to respond to the SRF and ensure its routinisation.
conclusionWe show preliminary support for this SRF being an acceptable, useable and potentially scalable way of enhancing existing IPC activities for viral respiratory infections. However, the context of both the trial and the alpha wave of COVID-19 limit confidence in these insights. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN50212645, Registration date 20/05/2020.
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.