11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Scaling Up Safer Birth Bundle Through Quality Improvement in Nepal (SUSTAIN)—a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in public hospitals

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Each year, 2.2 million intrapartum-related deaths (intrapartum stillbirths and first day neonatal deaths) occur worldwide with 99% of them taking place in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the accelerated increase in the proportion of deliveries taking place in health facilities in these settings, the stillborn and neonatal mortality rates have not reduced proportionately. Poor quality of care in health facilities is attributed to two-thirds of these deaths. Improving quality of care during the intrapartum period needs investments in evidence-based interventions. We aim to evaluate the quality improvement package—Scaling Up Safer Bundle Through Quality Improvement in Nepal (SUSTAIN)—on intrapartum care and intrapartum-related mortality in public hospitals of Nepal.

          Methods

          We will conduct a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in eight public hospitals with each having least 3000 deliveries a year. Each hospital will represent a cluster with an intervention transition period of 2 months in each. With a level of significance of 95%, the statistical power of 90% and an intra-cluster correlation of 0.00015, a study period of 19 months should detect at least a 15% change in intrapartum-related mortality. Quality improvement training, mentoring, systematic feedback, and a continuous improvement cycle will be instituted based on bottleneck analyses in each hospital. All concerned health workers will be trained on standard basic neonatal resuscitation and essential newborn care. Portable fetal heart monitors (Moyo®) and neonatal heart rate monitors (Neobeat®) will be introduced in the hospitals to identify fetal distress during labor and to improve neonatal resuscitation. Independent research teams will collect data in each hospital on intervention inputs, processes, and outcomes by reviewing records and carrying out observations and interviews. The dose-response effect will be evaluated through process evaluations.

          Discussion

          With the global momentum to improve quality of intrapartum care, better understanding of QI package within a health facility context is important. The proposed package is based on experiences from a similar previous scale-up trial carried out in Nepal. The proposed evaluation will provide evidence on QI package and technology for implementation and scale up in similar settings.

          Trial registration number

          ISRCTN16741720. Registered on 2 March 2019.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges

          Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice

            Background The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS framework, was first published in 1998. Since this time, work has been ongoing to further develop, refine and test it. Widely used as an organising or conceptual framework to help both explain and predict why the implementation of evidence into practice is or is not successful, PARIHS was one of the first frameworks to make explicit the multi-dimensional and complex nature of implementation as well as highlighting the central importance of context. Several critiques of the framework have also pointed out its limitations and suggested areas for improvement. Discussion Building on the published critiques and a number of empirical studies, this paper introduces a revised version of the framework, called the integrated or i-PARIHS framework. The theoretical antecedents of the framework are described as well as outlining the revised and new elements, notably, the revision of how evidence is described; how the individual and teams are incorporated; and how context is further delineated. We describe how the framework can be operationalised and draw on case study data to demonstrate the preliminary testing of the face and content validity of the revised framework. Summary This paper is presented for deliberation and discussion within the implementation science community. Responding to a series of critiques and helpful feedback on the utility of the original PARIHS framework, we seek feedback on the proposed improvements to the framework. We believe that the i-PARIHS framework creates a more integrated approach to understand the theoretical complexity from which implementation science draws its propositions and working hypotheses; that the new framework is more coherent and comprehensive and at the same time maintains it intuitive appeal; and that the models of facilitation described enable its more effective operationalisation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): Development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework

              Background The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS, framework is a theoretical framework widely promoted as a guide to implement evidence-based clinical practices. However, it has as yet no pool of validated measurement instruments that operationalize the constructs defined in the framework. The present article introduces an Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment instrument (ORCA), organized according to the core elements and sub-elements of the PARIHS framework, and reports on initial validation. Methods We conducted scale reliability and factor analyses on cross-sectional, secondary data from three quality improvement projects (n = 80) conducted in the Veterans Health Administration. In each project, identical 77-item ORCA instruments were administered to one or more staff from each facility involved in quality improvement projects. Items were organized into 19 subscales and three primary scales corresponding to the core elements of the PARIHS framework: (1) Strength and extent of evidence for the clinical practice changes represented by the QI program, assessed with four subscales, (2) Quality of the organizational context for the QI program, assessed with six subscales, and (3) Capacity for internal facilitation of the QI program, assessed with nine subscales. Results Cronbach's alpha for scale reliability were 0.74, 0.85 and 0.95 for the evidence, context and facilitation scales, respectively. The evidence scale and its three constituent subscales failed to meet the conventional threshold of 0.80 for reliability, and three individual items were eliminated from evidence subscales following reliability testing. In exploratory factor analysis, three factors were retained. Seven of the nine facilitation subscales loaded onto the first factor; five of the six context subscales loaded onto the second factor; and the three evidence subscales loaded on the third factor. Two subscales failed to load significantly on any factor. One measured resources in general (from the context scale), and one clinical champion role (from the facilitation scale). Conclusion We find general support for the reliability and factor structure of the ORCA. However, there was poor reliability among measures of evidence, and factor analysis results for measures of general resources and clinical champion role did not conform to the PARIHS framework. Additional validation is needed, including criterion validation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                rejugrg@hotmail.com
                dranjanikj@gmail.com
                dsnpyakurel@gmail.com
                grg.avee@gmail.com
                helena.litorp@kbh.uu.se
                johan.wrammert@kbh.uu.se
                jhabijay@gmail.com
                prajwal.paudel999@gmail.com
                syed.moshfiqur@kbh.uu.se
                honeymalla123@gmail.com
                srijanasharma1@gmail.com
                manish@anweshan.org
                joga@sus.no
                moinuddin@icddrb.org
                uwe.ewald@kbh.uu.se
                mats.malqvist@kbh.uu.se
                anna.axelin@utu.fi
                +977-9841453806 , aaashis7@yahoo.com
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                19 June 2019
                19 June 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 65
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Golden Community, Jwagal, Lalitpur, Nepal
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0433 6708, GRID grid.466728.9, Ministry of Health and Population, , Government of Nepal, ; Kathmandu, Nepal
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8639 0425, GRID grid.452693.f, Nepal Health Research Council, ; Ramshah Path, Kathmandu, Nepal
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9457, GRID grid.8993.b, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, , Uppsala University, ; Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, Uppsala, Sweden
                [5 ]Anweshan, Lalitpur, Nepal
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0627 2891, GRID grid.412835.9, Department of Paediatrics, , Stavanger University Hospital, ; Våland burrough, Stavanger, Norway
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0600 7174, GRID grid.414142.6, Maternal and Child Health Division, , ICDDR,B, ; Dhaka, Bangladesh
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2097 1371, GRID grid.1374.1, University of Turku, ; Turku, Finland
                [9 ]Society of Public Health Physicians Nepal, Lalitpur, Nepal
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-4486
                Article
                917
                10.1186/s13012-019-0917-z
                6582583
                31217028
                0c039018-f69f-4bb4-8a33-c4a03b29652a
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 5 May 2019
                : 10 June 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: Grand Challenges Canada
                Award ID: -
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine, Norway
                Award ID: -
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Medicine
                quality improvement interventions,basic neonatal resuscitation,fetal heart rate monitoring,stepped wedge cluster randomized control trial,nepal

                Comments

                Comment on this article