Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/23290
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGrant, Aileenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorDreischulte, Tobiasen_UK
dc.contributor.authorTreweek, Shaunen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGuthrie, Bruceen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-06T23:46:23Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-06T23:46:23Z-
dc.date.issued2012-08-28en_UK
dc.identifier.other154en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/23290-
dc.description.abstractBackground  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: NCT01425502en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_UK
dc.relationGrant 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/10.1186/1745-6215-13-154en_UK
dc.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.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectComplex interventionen_UK
dc.subjectProcess evaluationen_UK
dc.subjectProtocolen_UK
dc.subjectMixed methodsen_UK
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trialen_UK
dc.titleStudy 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.en_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1745-6215-13-154en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid22929598en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleTrialsen_UK
dc.citation.issn1745-6215en_UK
dc.citation.volume13en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailaileen.grant@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date28/08/2012en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealth Sciences Research - Stirling - LEGACYen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNHS Taysideen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Dundeeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Dundeeen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000311366400001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84865335057en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid570972en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-6146-101Xen_UK
dc.date.accepted2012-07-26en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2012-07-26en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2016-06-06en_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorGrant, Aileen|0000-0001-6146-101Xen_UK
local.rioxx.authorDreischulte, Tobias|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorTreweek, Shaun|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGuthrie, Bruce|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2016-06-06en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2016-06-06|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameGrant-et-al-Trials-2012.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Grant-et-al-Trials-2012.pdfFulltext - Published Version534.58 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

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 library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.