Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Study protocol of a mixed-methods evaluation of a cluster randomized trial to improve the safety of NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing: data-driven quality improvement in primary care.|
Randomized controlled trial
|Citation:||Grant A, Dreischulte T, Treweek S & Guthrie B (2012) Study protocol of a mixed-methods evaluation of a cluster randomized trial to improve the safety of NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing: data-driven quality improvement in primary care.. Trials, 13, Art. No.: 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-154|
|Abstract:||Background Trials of complex interventions are criticized for being ‘black box’, so the UK Medical Research Council recommends carrying out a process evaluation to explain the trial findings. We believe it is good practice to pre-specify and publish process evaluation protocols to set standards and minimize bias. Unlike protocols for trials, little guidance or standards exist for the reporting of process evaluations. This paper presents the mixed-method process evaluation protocol of a cluster randomized trial, drawing on a framework designed by the authors. Methods/design This mixed-method evaluation is based on four research questions and maps data collection to a logic model of how the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention is expected to work. Data collection will be predominately by qualitative case studies in eight to ten of the trial practices, focus groups with patients affected by the intervention and quantitative analysis of routine practice data, trial outcome and questionnaire data and data from the DQIP intervention. Discussion We believe that pre-specifying the intentions of a process evaluation can help to minimize bias arising from potentially misleading post-hoc analysis. We recognize it is also important to retain flexibility to examine the unexpected and the unintended. From that perspective, a mixed-methods evaluation allows the combination of exploratory and flexible qualitative work, and more pre-specified quantitative analysis, with each method contributing to the design, implementation and interpretation of the other. As well as strengthening the study the authors hope to stimulate discussion among their academic colleagues about publishing protocols for evaluations of randomized trials of complex interventions. Data-driven quality improvement in primary care trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01425502|
|Rights:||© Grant et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.|
Files in This Item:
|Grant-et-al-Trials-2012.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||534.58 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.