Search

Additional file 5. QASC Australia videos - mapping to behaviour change techniques and the behaviour change wheel.

Additional file 3. The TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) Checklist.

Additional file 2. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a cluster randomised trial

Horizontal transfer of transposable elements (TEs) is an important mechanism contributing to genetic diversity and innovation. Bats (order Chiroptera) have repeatedly been shown to experience horizontal transfer of TEs at what appears to be a high rate compared with other mammals. We investigated the occurrence of horizontally transferred (HT) DNA transposons involving bats. We found over 200 putative HT elements within bats; 16 transposons were shared across distantly related mammalian clades, and 2 other elements were shared with a fish and two lizard species. Our results indicate that bats are a hotspot for horizontal transfer of DNA transposons. These events broadly coincide with the diversification of several bat clades, supporting the hypothesis that DNA transposon invasions have contributed to genetic diversification of bats.

Additional file 4. Implementation strategies used in intervention and control groups, mapped against the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour (COM-B) model, Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Behaviour Change Wheel intervention functions.

Additional file 1. SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

Importance: Auditing and feedback are frequently used to improve patient care. However, it remains unclear how to optimize feedback effectiveness for the appropriate use of treatments such as blood transfusion, a common but costly procedure that is more often overused than underused.\ud \ud Objective: To evaluate 2 theoretically informed feedback interventions to improve the appropriate use of blood transfusions.\ud \ud Design, Setting, and Participants: Two sequential, linked 2 × 2 cluster randomized trials were performed in hospitals in the UK participating in national audits of transfusion for perioperative anemia and management of hematological disorders. Data were collected for a surgical trial from October 1, 2014, to October 31, 2016, with follow-up completed on October 31, 2016. Data were collected for a hematological trial through follow-up from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017. Trial data were analyzed from November 1, 2016, to June 1, 2019.\ud \ud Interventions: Hospitals were randomized to standard content or enhanced content to improve feedback clarity and usability and to standard support or enhanced support for staff to act on feedback.\ud \ud Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was appropriateness of transfusions audited at 12 months. Secondary end points included volume of transfusions (aiming for reductions at patient and cluster levels) and transfusion-related adverse events and reactions.\ud \ud Results: One hundred thirty-five of 152 eligible clusters participated in the surgical audit (2714 patients; mean [SD] age, 74.9 [14.0] years; 1809 women [66.7%]), and 134 of 141 participated in the hematological audit (4439 patients; median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-80.0] years; 2641 men [59.5%]). Fifty-seven of 69 clusters (82.6%) in the surgical audit randomized to enhanced content downloaded reports compared with 52 of 66 clusters (78.8%) randomized to standard reports. Fifty-nine of 68 clusters (86.8%) randomized to enhanced support logged onto the toolkit. The proportion of patients with appropriate transfusions was 0.184 for standard content and 0.176 for enhanced content (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [97.5% CI, 0.61-1.36]) and 0.181 for standard support and 0.180 for enhanced support (adjusted OR, 1.05 [97.5% CI, 0.68-1.61]). For the hematological audit, 53 of 66 clusters (80.3%) randomized to enhanced content downloaded the reports compared with 53 of 68 clusters (77.9%) randomized to standard content. Forty-nine of 67 clusters sites (73.1%) assigned to enhanced support logged into the toolkit at least once. The proportion of patients with appropriate transfusions was 0.744 for standard content and 0.714 for enhanced content (adjusted OR, 0.81 [97.5% CI, 0.56-1.12]), and 0.739 for standard support and 0.721 for enhanced support (adjusted OR, 0.96 [97.5% CI, 0.67-1.38]).\ud \ud Conclusions and Relevance: This comparison of cluster randomized trials found that interventions to improve feedback usability and guide local action were no more effective than standard feedback in increasing the appropriate use of blood transfusions. Auditing and feedback delivered at scale is a complex and costly program; therefore, effective responses may depend on developing robust local quality improvement arrangements, which can be evaluated using rigorous experimental designs embedded within national programs.\ud \ud Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN15490813

Background Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes. Methods We purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed. Results We interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme’s constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner’s needs. Conclusion Successfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.

The Nigerian Field, 39 (4), 148-162