↓ Skip to main content

Process evaluation of a cluster-randomised trial testing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a mixed-methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Process evaluation of a cluster-randomised trial testing a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: a mixed-methods study
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0547-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shelley Roberts, Elizabeth McInnes, Tracey Bucknall, Marianne Wallis, Merrilyn Banks, Wendy Chaboyer

Abstract

As pressure ulcers contribute to significant patient burden and increased health care costs, their prevention is a clinical priority. Our team developed and tested a complex intervention, a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle promoting patient participation in care, in a cluster-randomised trial. The UK Medical Research Council recommends process evaluation of complex interventions to provide insight into why they work or fail and how they might be improved. This study aimed to evaluate processes underpinning implementation of the intervention and explore end-users' perceptions of it, in order to give a deeper understanding of its effects. A pre-specified, mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted as an adjunct to the main trial, guided by a framework for process evaluation of cluster-randomised trials. Data was collected across eight Australian hospitals but mainly focused on the four intervention hospitals. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected across the evaluation domains: recruitment, reach, intervention delivery and response to intervention, at both cluster and individual patient level. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. In the context of the main trial, which found a 42% reduction in risk of pressure ulcer with the intervention that was not significant after adjusting for clustering and covariates, this process evaluation provides important insights. Recruitment and reach among clusters and individuals was high, indicating that patients, nurses and hospitals are willing to engage with a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle. Of 799 intervention patients in the trial, 96.7% received the intervention, which took under 10 min to deliver. Patients and nurses accepted the care bundle, recognising benefits to it and describing how it enabled participation in pressure ulcer prevention (PUP) care. This process evaluation found no major failures relating to implementation of the intervention. The care bundle was found to be easy to understand and deliver, and it reached a large proportion of the target population and was found to be acceptable to patients and nurses; therefore, it may be an effective way of engaging patients in their pressure ulcer prevention care and promoting evidence-based practise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 130 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 43 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 45 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,697,083
of 23,325,355 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,565
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,120
of 428,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#43
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,325,355 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.