ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Lessons from using the Normalisation Process Theory to understand adherence to guidance on MgSO
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe administration of magnesium sulphate (MgSO
methodsRemote semi-structured interviews were carried out as part of an evaluation of (1) the PReCePT (Preventing Cerebral Palsy in Pre-Term Labour) National Programme, and (2) the PReCePT cRCT study, and as part of a qualitative study investigating MgSO
resultsInterviews with 86 strategic and clinical leads and implementers from the three nations suggested that despite evidence being necessary and important for policy decision-making and clinical buy-in, improvement interventions were motivated by audit data and benchmarking. Scaling of improvement was driven by knowledge sharing, diffusion of innovation, and capacity building through relational structures (e.g. networks, communities) spanning the perinatal ecosystem. Local champions operating in multiple communities and networks as boundary-spanners connected national and regional leadership, patient group representatives, implementers i.e. clinical leads and champions, and perinatal clinical teams to enable knowledge mobilisation. Their work relied on backfill funding and protected time, and social-cognitive and social-structural resources in their settings. Sense-making, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring work took place iteratively and dynamically within and across these structures on each level of the system.
conclusionsQI interventions driven by knowledge mobilisation can drive scaling and spreading of improvement, but require knowledge sharing and an infrastructure within the system to support improvement capacity building. Strong leadership with the ability to address power imbalances between co-actors, and secure protected funding for local champions is also required.
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.