ArticleBMJ open2026
Leader perspectives on implementing Time Together: a qualitative process evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTime Together (TT) is a nursing intervention designed with a focus on increasing the possibility of patients and staff engaging in joint activities. Previous research points towards implementation difficulties but there are no studies specifically investigating the process of implementing TT in psychiatric inpatient care (PIC). Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore mid-level leaders' and implementation leads' perspectives on implementing TT in PIC, analysed through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
designThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews with 11 mid-level leaders and implementation leads who took part in implementing TT. The interviews were analysed using deductive qualitative content analysis, with the CFIR applied as a structured matrix in the analysis.
settingThe study was conducted in PIC settings at three wards within secondary care healthcare services in northern Sweden.
participantsParticipants were 11 mid-level leaders and implementation leads involved in the implementation of TT in PIC.
interventionsTT is scheduled for 1 hour, 5 days a week. During this hour, nursing staff and patients engage in joint activities, while one or two staff members oversee administrative duties. No meetings, visits or other ward-related activities are scheduled during this hour.
resultsDeductive content analysis resulted in 15 categories sorted into 4 domains and 11 constructs. TT was perceived as advantageous and aligned with the wards' mission. However, one key finding was that mid-level leaders and implementation leads found implementation challenging as they perceived that some innovation deliverers viewed joint activities within TT as lacking value and not being 'proper work'. Furthermore, there was a need for more information and a clearer rationale for the intervention in order to improve implementation and delivery.
conclusionsThe findings indicate a discrepancy in values and attitudes between leaders and innovation deliverers regarding what constitutes meaningful care in psychiatric inpatient settings. Implementation was further influenced by challenges related to leadership and motivating others. Barriers to implementing TT may not be addressable through implementation and intervention training alone. Instead, implementation planning should also consider intervention deliverers' values and beliefs.
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.