Does the site of research evidence generation impact on its translation to clinical practice? A protocol paper.

The research-to-practice gap is a well-known phenomenon. The adoption of evidence into clinical practice needs to consider the complexity of the health care system and a multitude of contextual issues. Research evidence is usually a form of extrinsic motivation for practice change, but works best when it aligns with the intrinsic values of the system and the people in it. Health professionals tend to refer to internal, local policies, information sources and procedures more than external academic research evidence. This protocol paper describes a mixed-methods study with a quasi-experimental design that seeks to investigate how involvement in research might impact the uptake or implementation of recommendations arising from that research. Research evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mobilisation alarms for falls prevention will be disseminated at 36 hospital wards in Victoria, Australia. Eighteen of these wards will be sites where this research evidence was generated; another 18 wards will not have been involved in evidence generation. The uptake of research evidence will be measured across three time points using quantitative and qualitative data. Trial registration: This study has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000823875p.
Competing Interests: TPH has provided expert witness testimony on the subject of prevention of falls in hospitals for K&L Gates Law Firm and Minter Ellison Law Firm. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
(Copyright: © 2024 Pu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)