Browsing by Author "Ivers, Noah"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis
    (2019-05-22) Squires, Janet E; Aloisio, Laura D; Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Bashir, Kainat; Dorrance, Kristin; Coughlin, Mary; Hutchinson, Alison M; Francis, Jill; Michie, Susan; Sales, Anne; Brehaut, Jamie; Curran, Janet; Ivers, Noah; Lavis, John; Noseworthy, Thomas; Vine, Jocelyn; Hillmer, Michael; Graham, Ian D
    Abstract Background To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of evidence-based practices, researchers, knowledge users, and healthcare professionals must consider aspects of context that promote and hinder implementation in their setting. The purpose of the current study was to identify contextual attributes and their features relevant to implementation by healthcare professionals and compare and contrast these attributes and features across different clinical settings and healthcare professional roles. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of 145 semi-structured interviews comprising 11 studies (10 from Canada and one from Australia) investigating healthcare professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers to their use of research evidence in clinical practice. The data was collected using semi-structured interview guides informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework across different healthcare professional roles, settings, and practices. We analyzed these data inductively, using constant comparative analysis, to identify attributes of context and their features reported in the interviews. We compared these data by (1) setting (primary care, hospital-medical/surgical, hospital-emergency room, hospital-critical care) and (2) professional role (physicians and residents, nurses and organ donor coordinators). Results We identified 62 unique features of context, which we categorized under 14 broader attributes of context. The 14 attributes were resource access, work structure, patient characteristics, professional role, culture, facility characteristics, system features, healthcare professional characteristics, financial, collaboration, leadership, evaluation, regulatory or legislative standards, and societal influences. We found instances of the majority (n = 12, 86%) of attributes of context across multiple (n = 6 or more) clinical behaviors. We also found little variation in the 14 attributes of context by setting (primary care and hospitals) and professional role (physicians and residents, and nurses and organ donor coordinators). Conclusions There was considerable consistency in the 14 attributes identified irrespective of the clinical behavior, setting, or professional role, supporting broad utility of the attributes of context identified in this study. There was more variation in the finer-grained features of these attributes with the most substantial variation being by setting.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cost analysis and efficacy of recruitment strategies used in a large pragmatic community-based clinical trial targeting low-income seniors: a comparative descriptive analysis
    (2019-10-07) Kakumanu, Sravya; Manns, Braden J; Tran, Sophia; Saunders-Smith, Terry; Hemmelgarn, Brenda R; Tonelli, Marcello; Tsuyuki, Ross; Ivers, Noah; Southern, Danielle; Bakal, Jeff; Campbell, David J T
    Abstract Objective One of the most challenging parts of running clinical trials is recruiting enough participants. Our objective was to determine which recruitment strategies were effective in reaching specific subgroups. Study design and setting We assessed the efficacy and costs of the recruitment strategies used in the Assessing Outcomes of Enhanced Chronic Disease Care Through Patient Education and a Value-based Formulary Study (ACCESS) in Alberta, Canada. Results Twenty percent of the study budget ($354,330 CAD) was spent on recruiting 4013 participants, giving an average cost per enrolled of $88 CAD. Pharmacies recruited the most participants (n = 1217), at a cost of $128/enrolled. ”Paid media” had the highest cost ($806/enrolled), whereas ”word of mouth” and ”unpaid media” had the lowest (~$3/enrolled). Participants enrolled from ”seniors outreach” had the lowest baseline quality of life and income, while participants from ”word of mouth” had the lowest educational attainment. Conclusion The ”health care providers” strategies were especially successful — at a moderate cost per enrolled. The "media" strategies were less effective, short lasting, and more costly. No strategy was singularly effective in recruiting our targeted groups, emphasizing the importance of utilizing a variety of strategies to reach recruitment goals. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02579655 . Registered on 19 October 2015.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Evaluating the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to reduce low-value care in adults hospitalized following trauma: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
    (2023-07-07) Moore, Lynne; Bérubé, Mélanie; Belcaid, Amina; Turgeon, Alexis F.; Taljaard, Monica; Fowler, Robert; Yanchar, Natalie; Mercier, Éric; Paquet, Jérôme; Stelfox, Henry T.; Archambault, Patrick; Berthelot, Simon; Guertin, Jason R.; Haas, Barbara; Ivers, Noah; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Lapierre, Alexandra; Ouyang, Yongdong; Sykes, Michael; Witteman, Holly; Lessard-Bonaventure, Paule; Gabbe, Belinda; Lauzier, François
    Abstract Background While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care. Methods We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I–III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Discussion On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm. Trial registration This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 ).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Sustainability, spread, and scale in trials using audit and feedback: a theory-informed, secondary analysis of a systematic review
    (2023-10-26) Laur, Celia; Ladak, Zeenat; Hall, Alix; Solbak, Nathan M.; Nathan, Nicole; Buzuayne, Shewit; Curran, Janet A.; Shelton, Rachel C.; Ivers, Noah
    Abstract Background Audit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to influence health professionals’ behavior that is often tested in implementation trials. This study examines how A&F trials describe sustainability, spread, and scale. Methods This is a theory-informed, descriptive, secondary analysis of an update of the Cochrane systematic review of A&F trials, including all trials published since 2011. Keyword searches related to sustainability, spread, and scale were conducted. Trials with at least one keyword, and those identified from a forward citation search, were extracted to examine how they described sustainability, spread, and scale. Results were qualitatively analyzed using the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF) and the Framework for Going to Full Scale (FGFS). Results From the larger review, n = 161 studies met eligibility criteria. Seventy-eight percent (n = 126) of trials included at least one keyword on sustainability, and 49% (n = 62) of those studies (39% overall) frequently mentioned sustainability based on inclusion of relevant text in multiple sections of the paper. For spread/scale, 62% (n = 100) of trials included at least one relevant keyword and 51% (n = 51) of those studies (31% overall) frequently mentioned spread/scale. A total of n = 38 studies from the forward citation search were included in the qualitative analysis. Although many studies mentioned the need to consider sustainability, there was limited detail on how this was planned, implemented, or assessed. The most frequent sustainability period duration was 12 months. Qualitative results mapped to the ISF, but not all determinants were represented. Strong alignment was found with the FGFS for phases of scale-up and support systems (infrastructure), but not for adoption mechanisms. New spread/scale themes included (1) aligning affordability and scalability; (2) balancing fidelity and scalability; and (3) balancing effect size and scalability. Conclusion A&F trials should plan for sustainability, spread, and scale so that if the trial is effective, the benefits can continue. A deeper empirical understanding of the factors impacting A&F sustainability is needed. Scalability planning should go beyond cost and infrastructure to consider other adoption mechanisms, such as leadership, policy, and communication, that may support further scalability. Trial registration Registered with Prospero in May 2022. CRD42022332606.