Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Study protocol

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

Authors: Aileen Grant, Tobias Dreischulte, Shaun Treweek, Bruce Guthrie

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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: NCT01425502
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Medical Research Council: Developing and evaluating complex interventions; new guidance. 2008, London: Medical Research Council Medical Research Council: Developing and evaluating complex interventions; new guidance. 2008, London: Medical Research Council
2.
go back to reference Dreischulte T, Grant A, Donnan P, McCowan C, Davey P, Petrie D, Treweek S, Guthrie B: A cluster randomised stepped wedge trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted information technology-based intervention in reducing high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets in primary care: the DQIP study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012, 7: 24-10.1186/1748-5908-7-24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dreischulte T, Grant A, Donnan P, McCowan C, Davey P, Petrie D, Treweek S, Guthrie B: A cluster randomised stepped wedge trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted information technology-based intervention in reducing high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets in primary care: the DQIP study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012, 7: 24-10.1186/1748-5908-7-24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B: Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials,. in press Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B: Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials,. in press
4.
go back to reference Pirmohamed MJ, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley T, Farrar K, Park BK, Breckenridge AM: Adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004, 329: 15-19. 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pirmohamed MJ, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley T, Farrar K, Park BK, Breckenridge AM: Adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004, 329: 15-19. 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, Pirmohamed M: Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007, 63: 136-147. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02698.x.CrossRefPubMed Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, Royal S, Pipe G, Lucassen P, Pirmohamed M: Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007, 63: 136-147. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02698.x.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Hussey MA, Hughes JP: Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007, 28: 182-191. 10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007.CrossRefPubMed Hussey MA, Hughes JP: Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007, 28: 182-191. 10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Nazareth I, Freemantle N, Duggan C, Mason J, Haines A: Evaluation of a complex intervention for changing professional behaviour: The evidence based out reach (EBOR) trial. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002, 7: 230-238. 10.1258/135581902320432769.CrossRefPubMed Nazareth I, Freemantle N, Duggan C, Mason J, Haines A: Evaluation of a complex intervention for changing professional behaviour: The evidence based out reach (EBOR) trial. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002, 7: 230-238. 10.1258/135581902320432769.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Mason J: Sampling and selection in qualitative research. In Qualitative Researching. 2002, London: Sage Publications Ltd, 120-144. Mason J: Sampling and selection in qualitative research. In Qualitative Researching. 2002, London: Sage Publications Ltd, 120-144.
10.
go back to reference Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009, 339: b3496-10.1136/bmj.b3496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009, 339: b3496-10.1136/bmj.b3496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Hoddinott P, Britten J, Pill R: Why do interventions work in some places and not others: a breastfeeding support group trial. Soc Sci Med. 2010, 70: 769-778. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.067.CrossRefPubMed Hoddinott P, Britten J, Pill R: Why do interventions work in some places and not others: a breastfeeding support group trial. Soc Sci Med. 2010, 70: 769-778. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.067.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference May C, Finch T: Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalisation Process Theory. Sociology. 2009, 43: 535-10.1177/0038038509103208.CrossRef May C, Finch T: Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalisation Process Theory. Sociology. 2009, 43: 535-10.1177/0038038509103208.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Stake R: The art of case study research. 1995, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd Stake R: The art of case study research. 1995, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd
14.
go back to reference Denzin NK: Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualtiative Inquiry. 2010, 16: 416- Denzin NK: Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualtiative Inquiry. 2010, 16: 416-
15.
go back to reference Cresswell JW, Plano CVL: Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2007, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd Cresswell JW, Plano CVL: Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2007, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd
16.
go back to reference Silverman D: Interpreting qualitative data. 2006, London: Sage Publications Ltd, 3 Silverman D: Interpreting qualitative data. 2006, London: Sage Publications Ltd, 3
17.
go back to reference Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W: Carrying out Qualitative Analysis. Qualitative Research Practice: A guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Edited by: Ritchie J, Lewis J. 2003, London: Sage Publications Ltd Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W: Carrying out Qualitative Analysis. Qualitative Research Practice: A guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Edited by: Ritchie J, Lewis J. 2003, London: Sage Publications Ltd
18.
go back to reference Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10: 45-53. 10.1258/1355819052801804.CrossRefPubMed Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10: 45-53. 10.1258/1355819052801804.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Francis J, Eccles M, Johnston M, Whitty P, Grimshaw J, Kaner E, Smith L, Walker A: Explaining the effects of an intervention designed to promote evidence-based diabetes care: a theory-based process evaluation of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2008, 3: 50-10.1186/1748-5908-3-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Francis J, Eccles M, Johnston M, Whitty P, Grimshaw J, Kaner E, Smith L, Walker A: Explaining the effects of an intervention designed to promote evidence-based diabetes care: a theory-based process evaluation of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2008, 3: 50-10.1186/1748-5908-3-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C, Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C: The use of mixed methodology in evaluating complex interventions: identifying patient factors that moderate the effects of a decision aid. Fam Pract. 2007, 24: 594-600. 10.1093/fampra/cmm066.CrossRefPubMed Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C, Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C: The use of mixed methodology in evaluating complex interventions: identifying patient factors that moderate the effects of a decision aid. Fam Pract. 2007, 24: 594-600. 10.1093/fampra/cmm066.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1655-10.1136/bmj.a1655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008, 337: a1655-10.1136/bmj.a1655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Aileen Grant
Tobias Dreischulte
Shaun Treweek
Bruce Guthrie
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-154

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Trials 1/2012 Go to the issue