↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility, acceptability, and adherence of two educational programs for care staff concerning nursing home patients’ fecal incontinence: a pilot study preceding a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Feasibility, acceptability, and adherence of two educational programs for care staff concerning nursing home patients’ fecal incontinence: a pilot study preceding a cluster-randomized controlled trial
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0263-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lene Elisabeth Blekken, Sigrid Nakrem, Kari Hanne Gjeilo, Christine Norton, Siv Mørkved, Anne Guttormsen Vinsnes

Abstract

Fecal incontinence has a high prevalence in the nursing home population which cannot be explained by co-morbidity or anatomic and physiological changes of aging alone. Our hypothesis is that fecal incontinence can be prevented, cured, or ameliorated by offering care staff knowledge of best practice. However, it is not clear which educational model is most effective. To assess the effect of two educational programs for care staff, we planned a three armed cluster-randomized controlled trial. There is a lack of research reporting effects of interventions targeting improved continence care processes in older patients. Thus, to improve the quality of the planned trial, we decided to carry out a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of the planned design, the interventions (educational programs) and the outcome measures, and to enable a power calculation. This paper reports the results from the pilot study. Three nursing homes, representing each arm of the planned trial, were recruited. Criteria for assessing success of feasibility were pre-specified. Methods, outcome measures, acceptability, and adherence of the components of the intervention were evaluated by descriptive statistical analyses and qualitative content analysis of one focus group interview (n = 7) and four individual interviews. The main study is feasible with one major and some minor modifications. Due to challenges with recruitment and indications supporting the assumption that a single intervention with one workshop is not sufficient as an implementation strategy, the main study will be reduced to two arms: a multifaceted education intervention and control. The components of the multifaceted intervention seemed to work well together and need only minor modification. Important barriers to consider were sub-optimal use of skill-mix, problems of communicating important assessments and care plans, and isolated nurses with an indistinct nurse identity. Overall, the main study is feasible. The pedagogical approach needs to consider the identified barriers. Thus, it is essential to empower nurses in their professional role, to facilitate clinical reasoning and critical thinking among care staff, and to facilitate processes to enable care staff to find, report, and utilize information in the electronic patient record. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01939821.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 141 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 35 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 20%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 44 31%

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 26 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,411,569
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,645
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,612
of 267,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#48
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 267,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.