FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence): A study protocol

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • External authors:
  • Kate Seers
  • Karen Cox
  • Nicola J. Crichton
  • Rhiannon T. Edwards
  • Ann C. Eldh
  • Carole A. Estabrooks
  • Claire Hawkes
  • Alison Kitson
  • Pat Linck
  • Geraldine McCarthy
  • Brendan McCormack
  • Carole Mockford
  • Jo Rycroft-Malone
  • Angie Titchen
  • Lars Wallin

Abstract

Background: Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids.Objectives: This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community.Setting and sample: Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence. Methods and design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502. © 2012 Seers et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Bibliographical metadata

Original languageEnglish
Article number25
JournalImplementation Science
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Mar 2012

Related information