ArticleImplementation science communications2025
The implementation of reusable drapes and gowns in operating theatres: A mixed-methods analysis of data from 5230 peri-operative professionals in 134 countries.
Article in Implementation science communications, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReuse of sterile textiles could potentially reduce the carbon footprint of operating theatres. The aim of this mixed-methods study is to gain a deeper understanding of the implementation of reusable drapes and gowns across different contexts through applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
methodsA mixed-methods analysis was performed of cross-sectional data from a survey distributed by snowball sampling across a global research network. A five-point Likert scale assessed perspectives on safety and feasibility of implementation of reusable textiles. An open-ended question asked about the implementation of reusables. Inductive and deductive coding was used, informed by the CFIR.
resultsA total of 5734 responses were collected, of which 5230 were eligible for inclusion. Most respondents believed that the intervention was unlikely or very unlikely to affect safety (3266/5230, 62.4%) or have detrimental consequences on environment or patient care (2990/5230, 57.2%), and that its introduction was likely or very likely to be successful (2888/5230, 55.2%). From a total of 1514 free-text entries, nine unique implementation factors were identified. Financial constraints were important across all settings. Whilst sterilisation-related issues were commonly reported in low and middle-income countries, institutional challenges were prominent in high-income countries. Mapping these factors to CFIR, the 'setting' of the intervention was the most relevant for effective implementation, along with the 'individuals' within the setting, rather than the intervention itself or the implementation process. A strategy identification tool and programme theory were developed, providing a starting point for institutions considering implementation of reusables and basis for future research.
conclusionImplementation of this carbon-reducing intervention varied across resource settings. Recognising the unique implementation context, and developing tailored strategies, could aid implementation of this innovation through both research and wider scale rollout.
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.