Explore the vast range of titles available.

Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a key focus of healthcare improvements to reduce unwarranted variation. Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these two research implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-informed healthcare management decisions for the provision of inpatient weekend allied health services. This multicentre, single-blinded (data collection and analysis), three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation was conducted in Australian and New Zealand hospitals between February 2018 and January 2020. Clustering and randomisation took place at the organisation level where weekend allied health staffing decisions were made (e.g., network of hospitals or single hospital). Hospital wards were nested within these decision-making structures. Three conditions were compared over a 12-month period: (1) usual practice waitlist control; (2) dissemination of written evidence-based practice recommendations; and (3) access to a webinar-based knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations. The primary outcome was the alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations at the cluster and ward levels, addressing the adoption, penetration, and fidelity to the recommendations. The secondary outcome was mean hospital length of stay at the ward level. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 12 months later. A total of 45 clusters (n = 833 wards) were randomised to either control (n = 15), recommendation (n = 16), or knowledge broker (n = 14) conditions. Four (9%) did not provide follow-up data, and no adverse events were recorded. No significant effect was found with either implementation strategy for the primary outcome at the cluster level (recommendation versus control β 18.11 [95% CI -8,721.81 to 8,758.02] p = 0.997; knowledge broker versus control β 1.24 [95% CI -6,992.60 to 6,995.07] p = 1.000; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -9.12 [95% CI -3,878.39 to 3,860.16] p = 0.996) or ward level (recommendation versus control β 0.01 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.75] p = 0.983; knowledge broker versus control β -0.12 [95% CI -0.54 to 0.30] p = 0.581; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -0.19 [-1.04 to 0.65] p = 0.651). There was no significant effect between strategies for the secondary outcome at ward level (recommendation versus control β 2.19 [95% CI -1.36 to 5.74] p = 0.219; knowledge broker versus control β -0.55 [95% CI -1.16 to 0.06] p = 0.075; recommendation versus knowledge broker β -3.75 [95% CI -8.33 to 0.82] p = 0.102). None of the control or knowledge broker clusters transitioned to partial or full alignment with the recommendations. Three (20%) of the clusters who only received the written recommendations transitioned from nonalignment to partial alignment. Limitations include underpowering at the cluster level sample due to the grouping of multiple geographically distinct hospitals to avoid contamination. Owing to a lack of power at the cluster level, this trial was unable to identify a difference between the knowledge broker strategy and dissemination of recommendations compared with usual practice for the promotion of evidence-informed resource allocation to inpatient weekend allied health services. Future research is needed to determine the interactions between different implementation strategies and healthcare contexts when translating evidence into healthcare practice. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000029291.

The aims of the study were to evaluate the effect of providing tailored falls prevention education in hospital on: i) engagement in targeted falls prevention behaviors in the month after discharge: ii) patients' self-perceived risk and knowledge about falls and falls prevention strategies after receiving the education. A pilot randomized controlled trial (n = 50): baseline and outcome assessments conducted by blinded researchers. hospital inpatients 60 years or older, discharged to the community. Participants were randomized into two groups. The intervention was a tailored education package consisting of multimedia falls prevention information with trained health professional follow-up, delivered in addition to usual care. Outcome measures were engagement in falls prevention behaviors in the month after discharge measured at one month after discharge with a structured survey, and participants' knowledge, confidence and motivation levels before and after receiving the education. The feasibility of providing the intervention was examined and falls outcomes (falls, fall-related injuries) were also collected. Forty-eight patients (98%) provided follow-up data. The complete package was provided to 21 (84%) intervention group participants. Participants in the intervention group were significantly more likely to plan how to safely restart functional activities [Adjusted odds ratio 3.80, 95% CI (1.07, 13.52), p = 0.04] and more likely to complete other targeted behaviors such as completing their own home exercise program [Adjusted odds ratio 2.76, 95% CI (0.72, 10.50), p = 0.14] than the control group. The intervention group was significantly more knowledgeable, confident and motivated to engage in falls prevention strategies after receiving the education than the control group. There were 23 falls (n = 5 intervention; n = 18 control) and falls rates were 5.4/1000 patient days (intervention); 18.7/1000 patient days (control). This tailored education was received positively by older people, resulted in increased engagement in falls prevention strategies after discharge and is feasible to deliver to older hospital patients. The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12611000963921 on 8th November 2011.

Falls are the most frequent adverse events that are reported in hospitals. We examined the effectiveness of individualised falls-prevention education for patients, supported by training and feedback for staff, delivered as a ward-level programme. Eight rehabilitation units in general hospitals in Australia participated in this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised study, undertaken during a 50 week period. Units were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups by use of computer-generated, random allocation sequences. We included patients admitted to the unit during the study with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of more than 23/30 to receive individualised education that was based on principles of changes in health behaviour from a trained health professional, in addition to usual care. We provided information about patients' goals, feedback about the ward environment, and perceived barriers to engagement in falls-prevention strategies to staff who were trained to support the uptake of strategies by patients. The coprimary outcome measures were patient rate of falls per 1000 patient-days and the proportion of patients who were fallers. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials registry, number ACTRN12612000877886). Between Jan 13, and Dec 27, 2013, 3606 patients were admitted to the eight units (n=1983 control period; n=1623 intervention period). There were fewer falls (n=196, 7·80/1000 patient-days vs n=380, 13·78/1000 patient-days, adjusted rate ratio 0·60 [robust 95% CI 0·42–0·94], p=0·003), injurious falls (n=66, 2·63/1000 patient-days vs 131, 4·75/1000 patient-days, 0·65 [robust 95% CI 0·42–0·88], p=0·006), and fallers (n=136 [8·38%] vs n=248 [12·51%] adjusted odds ratio 0·55 [robust 95% CI 0·38 to 0·81], p=0·003) in the intervention compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in length of stay (intervention median 11 days [IQR 7–19], control 10 days [6–18]). Individualised patient education programmes combined with training and feedback to staff added to usual care reduces the rates of falls and injurious falls in older patients in rehabilitation hospital-units. State Health Research Advisory Council, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia.

Background It is widely acknowledged that health policy and management decisions rarely reflect research evidence. Therefore, it is important to determine how to improve evidence-informed decision-making. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare. The secondary aim of the review was to describe factors perceived to be associated with effective strategies and the inter-relationship between these factors. Methods An electronic search was developed to identify studies published between January 01, 2000, and February 02, 2016. This was supplemented by checking the reference list of included articles, systematic reviews, and hand-searching publication lists from prominent authors. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Results After duplicate removal, the search strategy identified 3830 titles. Following title and abstract screening, 96 full-text articles were reviewed, of which 19 studies (21 articles) met all inclusion criteria. Three studies were included in the narrative synthesis, finding policy briefs including expert opinion might affect intended actions, and intentions persisting to actions for public health policy in developing nations. Workshops, ongoing technical assistance, and distribution of instructional digital materials may improve knowledge and skills around evidence-informed decision-making in US public health departments. Tailored, targeted messages were more effective in increasing public health policies and programs in Canadian public health departments compared to messages and a knowledge broker. Sixteen studies (18 articles) were included in the thematic synthesis, leading to a conceptualisation of inter-relating factors perceived to be associated with effective research implementation strategies. A unidirectional, hierarchal flow was described from (1) establishing an imperative for practice change, (2) building trust between implementation stakeholders and (3) developing a shared vision , to (4) actioning change mechanisms . This was underpinned by the (5) employment of effective communication strategies and (6) provision of resources to support change. Conclusions Evidence is developing to support the use of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare. The design of future implementation strategies should be based on the inter-relating factors perceived to be associated with effective strategies. Trial registration This systematic review was registered with Prospero (record number: 42016032947).

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 .

BackgroundPoor translation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) into clinical practice is a barrier to the provision of consistent and high-quality evidence-based care. The objective was to systematically review the roles and effectiveness of knowledge brokers (KBs) for translating CPGs in health-related settings.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus were searched from 2014 to June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled preintervention and postintervention studies involving KBs, either alone or as part of a multicomponent intervention, that reported quantitative postintervention changes in guideline implementation in a healthcare setting were included. A KB was defined as an intermediary who facilitated knowledge translation by acting in at least two of the following core roles: knowledge manager, linkage agent or capacity builder. Specific activities undertaken by KBs were deductively coded to the three core roles, then common activities were inductively grouped. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and coding were performed independently by two authors.Results16 studies comprising 6 RCTs, 8 uncontrolled precomparisons–postcomparisons, 1 controlled precomparison–postcomparison and 1 interrupted time series were included. 14 studies (88%) were conducted in hospital settings. Knowledge manager roles included creating and distributing guideline material. Linkage agent roles involved engaging with internal and external stakeholders. Capacity builder roles involved audit and feedback and educating staff. KBs improved guideline adherence in 10 studies (63%), had mixed impact in 2 studies (13%) and no impact in 4 studies (25%). Half of the RCTs showed KBs had no impact on guideline adherence. KBs acted as knowledge managers in 15 (94%) studies, linkage agents in 11 (69%) studies and capacity builders in all studies.ConclusionKnowledge manager and capacity builder roles were more frequently studied than linkage agent roles. KBs had mixed impact on translating CPGs into practice. Further RCTs, including those in non-hospital settings, are required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022340365.

Multiple approaches can be used to communicate public health messages through mass media. It is unclear which approaches are superior for meeting the needs of the general community along with vulnerable population subgroups. To compare different public health strategy communication approaches for influencing the COVID-safe behavioural intentions of both community and vulnerable population subgroups. This study will conduct three concurrent ‘helix’ randomised controlled trials with Latin square sequencing and factorial intervention allocation to assess the effectiveness of different communication strategies amongst the Australian general community and six subgroups that are considered vulnerable to contracting, transmitting or experiencing severe consequences of COVID-19 infection. Communication approaches being compared include: the format of communication (written versus video), who is providing information (general practitioner, politician, community-representative), what is said and how it is delivered (direct information provision versus conversational approach) and the visual content of video messaging (animation versus ‘talking head’). Recruited participants will be randomly allocated to receive a specific combination of health messaging strategies using six different COVID-19 context areas. Outcomes will be assessed in a survey using behaviour intention questions, and questions surrounding level of agreement with feeling represented in the health messaging strategy. These trials will use a unique research approach to provide an experimental evidence base to help guide development of impactful and inclusive COVID-19 and related public health messaging. All three trials are registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Trial 1: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 1, vulnerable subgroup populations (ACTRN12622000606785). Trial 2: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 2, community group (ACTRN12622000605796). Trial 3: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 3, What communication strategy is most effective for both vulnerable and community group populations? (ACTRN12622000617763).

Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

This study aims to address and improve the low physical activity levels among people with mild dementia by implementing a novel shared decision-making and motivational support program, named \"Changing the Focus\". It will utilise a pre-post mixed methods approach, aiming to recruit 60 community living older people with mild dementia and their care-partners. The shared decision-making process will involve the person living with dementia, their care-partner, and a research therapist, using a purpose-designed discussion tool including factors such as preferred physical activities, health status, local opportunities and program accessibility. This process aims to identify personalised local physical activity opportunities. Participants will be supported with the help of a research therapist to engage in targeted community-based physical activities for 12-months, to progress towards the recommended physical activity guidelines of 150 minutes per week. The intervention provided by the research therapist will include three home visits (baseline, 6- and 12-months) and seven motivational support phone calls (within the first six months). Research therapists may provide additional home visits and support calls as needed. Primary outcomes include program participation (participants living with dementia continuing with the program after 12-months), total physical activity time per week (measured using the Active Australia Survey at baseline, 6- and 12- months) and program acceptability (assessed through semi-structured interviews with participants, care-partners, referrers, and physical activity providers). Secondary outcomes include physical performance, mental health, wellbeing measures, and impact on care-partners (evaluated through physical tests or validated scales at baseline, 6- and 12-months). Other implementation aspects include reach, maintenance, safety (falls, other adverse events) and an economic evaluation. Results will inform feasibility, potential benefits, and challenges associated with this innovative shared decision-making and supported physical activity program for people living with mild dementia. Findings will guide future large-scale studies and contribute to enhancing physical activity opportunities for this population.

Disinvestment is the removal or reduction of previously provided practices or services, and has typically been undertaken where a practice or service has been clearly shown to be ineffective, inefficient and/or harmful. However, practices and services that have uncertain evidence of effectiveness, efficiency and safety can also be considered as candidates for disinvestment. Disinvestment from these practices and services is risky as they may yet prove to be beneficial if further evidence becomes available. A novel research approach has previously been described for this situation, allowing disinvestment to take place while simultaneously generating evidence previously missing from consideration. In this paper, we describe how this approach can be expanded to situations where three or more conditions are of relevance, and describe the protocol for a trial examining the reduction and elimination of use of mobilisation alarms on hospital wards to prevent patient falls. Our approach utilises a 3-group, concurrent, non-inferiority, stepped wedge, randomised design with an embedded parallel, cluster randomised design. Eighteen hospital wards with high rates of alarm use (≥3%) will be paired within their health service and randomly allocated to a calendar month when they will transition to a “Reduced” (<3%) or “Eliminated” (0%) mobilisation alarm condition. Dynamic randomisation will be used to determine which ward in each pair will be allocated to either the reduced or eliminated condition to promote equivalence between wards for the embedded parallel, cluster randomised component of the design. A project governance committee will set non-inferiority margins. The primary outcome will be rates of falls. Secondary clinical, process, safety, and economic outcomes will be collected and a concurrent economic evaluation undertaken.