22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A cluster randomised controlled trial, process and economic evaluation of quality improvement collaboratives aligned to a national audit to improve the care for people with diabetes (EQUIPD): study protocol

      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

          People with type 1 diabetes and raised glucose levels are at greater risk of retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, sexual health problems and foot disease. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends continuous subcutaneous ‘insulin pump’ therapy for people with type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c is above 69 mmol/mol. Insulin pump use can improve quality of life, cut cardiovascular risk and increase treatment satisfaction. About 90,000 people in England and Wales meet NICE criteria for insulin pumps but do not use one. Insulin pump use also varies markedly by deprivation, ethnicity, sex and location. Increasing insulin pump use is a key improvement priority.

          Audit and feedback is a common but variably effective intervention. Limited capabilities of healthcare providers to mount effective responses to feedback from national audits, such as the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), undermines efforts to improve care. We have co-developed a theoretically and empirically informed quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to strengthen local responses to feedback with patients and carers, national audits and healthcare providers. We will evaluate whether the QIC improves the uptake of insulin pumps following NDA feedback.

          Methods

          We will undertake an efficient cluster randomised trial using routine data. The QIC will be delivered alongside the NDA to specialist diabetes teams in England and Wales. Our primary outcome will be the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes and an HbA1c above 69 mmol/mol who start and continue insulin pump use during the 18-month intervention period. Secondary outcomes will assess change in glucose control and duration of pump use. Subgroup analyses will explore impacts upon inequalities by ethnicity, sex, age and deprivation. A theory-informed process evaluation will explore diabetes specialist teams’ engagement, implementation, fidelity and tailoring through observations, interviews, surveys and documentary analysis. An economic evaluation will micro-cost the QIC, estimate cost-effectiveness of NDA feedback with QIC and estimate the budget impact of NHS-wide QIC roll out.

          Discussion

          Our study responds to a need for more head-to-head trials of different ways of reinforcing feedback delivery. Our findings will have implications for other large-scale audit and feedback programmes.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN82176651 Registered 18 October 2022.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-023-01293-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions.

          CONSORT guidelines call for precise reporting of behavior change interventions: we need rigorous methods of characterizing active content of interventions with precision and specificity. The objective of this study is to develop an extensive, consensually agreed hierarchically structured taxonomy of techniques [behavior change techniques (BCTs)] used in behavior change interventions. In a Delphi-type exercise, 14 experts rated labels and definitions of 124 BCTs from six published classification systems. Another 18 experts grouped BCTs according to similarity of active ingredients in an open-sort task. Inter-rater agreement amongst six researchers coding 85 intervention descriptions by BCTs was assessed. This resulted in 93 BCTs clustered into 16 groups. Of the 26 BCTs occurring at least five times, 23 had adjusted kappas of 0.60 or above. "BCT taxonomy v1," an extensive taxonomy of 93 consensually agreed, distinct BCTs, offers a step change as a method for specifying interventions, but we anticipate further development and evaluation based on international, interdisciplinary consensus.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project

            Background Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. Methods Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call. Results Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. Conclusions This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy’s importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites’ endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory

              C. May, T Finch (2009)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Michael.sykes@Northumbria.ac.uk
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                31 August 2023
                31 August 2023
                2023
                : 18
                : 37
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.42629.3b, ISNI 0000000121965555, Northumbria University, ; Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.9909.9, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8403, University of Leeds, ; Leeds, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.6142.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0488 0789, University of Galway, ; Galway, Ireland
                [4 ]GRID grid.7445.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, Imperial College London, ; London, UK
                [5 ]National Diabetes Audit, Leeds, UK
                [6 ]DiabetesUK, London, UK
                [7 ]Expert By Experience, London, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2039-7397
                Article
                1293
                10.1186/s13012-023-01293-0
                10470130
                37653413
                739982e0-24ee-4ee9-b8a7-121014023f53
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 22 June 2023
                : 18 August 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: 151848
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Medicine
                audit and feedback,quality improvement collaborative,diabetes,insulin pump,randomised controlled trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article