Mobilising knowledge between practitioners and researchers to iteratively refine a complex intervention (DAFNEplus) pre-trial: Protocol for a structured, collaborative working group process

被引：5

作者：

Breckenridge J.P. ^{[1
]}

Gianfrancesco C. ^{[2
]}

De Zoysa N. ^{[3
]}

Lawton J. ^{[4
]}

Rankin D. ^{[4
]}

Coates E. ^{[5
]}

机构：

[1] School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, 11 Airlie Place, Dundee

[2] Sheffield Diabetes and Endocrine Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield

[3] Diabetes Centre, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London

[4] Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh Medical School of Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences, Teviot Place, Edinburgh

[5] School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield

来源：

Pilot and Feasibility Studies | / 4卷 / 1期

关键词：

Co-design; Collaborative working; Feasibility study; Intervention development; Knowledge mobilisation; Pilot study; Process evaluation; Qualitative research; Type; 1; diabetes;

D O I：

10.1186/s40814-018-0314-4

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions often begin with a pilot phase to test the proposed methods and refine the intervention before it is trialled. Although the Medical Research Council (MRC) recommends regular communication between the practitioners delivering the intervention and the researchers evaluating it during the pilot phase, there is a lack of practical guidance about how to undertake this aspect of pre-trial work. This paper describes a novel structured process for collaborative working, which we developed to iteratively refine a complex intervention prior to an RCT. We also describe an in-built qualitative study to learn lessons about how this approach could be used by future study teams. Methods: This work forms part of a broader research programme to develop and trial a complex intervention for people with type 1 diabetes, called DAFNEplus. The intervention is being piloted in three National Health Service (NHS) diabetes centres in two waves, with refinements being incrementally implemented between each wave in response to real-time, collective learning (combining practitioner experience, process evaluation data and patient and public involvement via an advisory group). A structured 'Collaborative Working Group' (CWG) process, comprising monthly teleconferences and four strategically timed face-to-face meetings, is being used to identify and respond systematically to emerging implementation challenges and research findings. The group involves 25 members of the study team, including the multi-disciplinary practitioners delivering the intervention, the research teams conducting the process evaluation, the study manager and Chief Investigator. An in-built qualitative study comprising documentary analysis of meeting materials, discourse analysis of meeting transcripts, reflexive note taking, and thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews with CWG members is being undertaken to explore how the CWG works and how its processes and procedures might be improved. Discussion: The CWG process offers a potential model for collaborative working in future pre-trial pilot phases and intervention development studies that operationalises MRC guidance to progressively develop a complex intervention and foster shared ownership through genuine collaboration. The findings from the qualitative study will provide insight into how to best support collaborative working to achieve optimal intervention design. © The Author(s). 2018.

引用

共 18 条

[1]

Moore G.F., Audrey S., Barker M., Bond L., Bonell C., Hardeman W., Moore L., O'Cathain A., Tinati T., Wight D., Baird J., Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance, BMJ, 350, (2015)

[2]

Davies H.T.O., Powell A., Nutley S., Mobilizing knowledge in health care, The Oxford Handbook of Health Care Management, (2016)

[3]

Davies H.T.O., Powell A.E., Nutley S.M., Mobilising Knowledge to Improve UK Health Care: Learning from Other Countries and Other Sectors - A Multimethod Mapping Study, (2015)

[4]

Baumbusch J.L., Kirkham S.R., Khan K.B., McDonald H., Semeniuk P., Tan E., Anderson J.M., Pursuing common agendas: A collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings, Res Nurs Health, 31, pp. 130-140, (2008)

[5]

McWilliam C.L., Kothari A., Ward-Griffin C., Forbes D., Leipert B., Evolving the theory and praxis of knowledge translation through social interaction: A social phenomenological study, Imp Sci, 4, pp. 26-40, (2009)

[6]

Reason P., Bradbury H., Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, (2001)

[7]

Borton T., Reach, Touch, and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education, (1970)

[8]

Brett J., Staniszewska S., Mockford C., Herron-Marx S., Hughes J., Tysall C., Suleman R., A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities, Patient, 7, pp. 387-395, (2014)

[9]

Hayes H., Buckland S., Tarpey M., Briefing Notes for Researchers: Public Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research, (2012)

[10]

Cheek J., At the margins? Discourse analysis and qualitative research, Qual Health Res, 14, pp. 1140-1150, (2004)

← 1 2 →