Back to Search
Start Over
FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence): a study protocol
- Source :
- Implementation Science, Vol 7, Iss 1, p 25 (2012), Implementation Science : IS, Implementation Science, Implementation Science; Vol 7
- Publication Year :
- 2012
- Publisher :
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2012.
-
Abstract
- Background Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids. Objectives This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community. Setting and sample Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence Methods and design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.
- Subjects :
- Biomedical Research
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Best practice
Poison control
Dermatitis
Health Informatics
Health administration
Study Protocol
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
Nursing
Knowledge translation
Health care
Humans
Medicine
030212 general & internal medicine
Health policy
Aged
Medicine(all)
lcsh:R5-920
Evidence-Based Medicine
business.industry
Data Collection
030503 health policy & services
Health Policy
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Health services research
General Medicine
Evidence-based medicine
Middle Aged
R1
3. Good health
Treatment Outcome
Urinary Incontinence
Sample Size
Urinary Tract Infections
Quality of Life
Feasibility Studies
Diffusion of Innovation
lcsh:Medicine (General)
0305 other medical science
business
RC
Subjects
Details
- ISSN :
- 17485908
- Volume :
- 7
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Implementation Science
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....4a0b788ef02540042153b33b2f07035d
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-25