↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and guidelines with, versus without…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Protocol for a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and guidelines with, versus without, implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending outpatient oncology and palliative care services: the Stop Cancer PAIN trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3318-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Luckett, Jane Phillips, Meera Agar, Lawrence Lam, Patricia M. Davidson, Nicola McCaffrey, Frances Boyle, Tim Shaw, David C. Currow, Alison Read, Annmarie Hosie, Melanie Lovell

Abstract

Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people with cancer, but is under-recognised and under-treated. Australian guidelines for 'Cancer Pain Management in Adults' are available on the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guideline Wiki. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a suite of guideline implementation strategies for improving pain outcomes in adults with cancer in oncology and palliative care outpatient settings. The study will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled design, with oncology and palliative care outpatient services as the clusters. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with cancer and pain presenting to participating services during the study period. During an initial control arm, services will routinely screen patients for average and worst pain over the past 24 h using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and have unfettered access to online guidelines. During the intervention arm, staff at each service will be encouraged to use: 1) a patient education booklet and self-management resource; 2) an online spaced learning cancer pain education module for clinicians from different disciplines; and 3) audit and feedback of service performance on key indices of cancer pain screening, assessment and management. Service-based clinical change champions will lead implementation of these strategies. The trial's primary outcome will be the probability that patients initially screened as having moderate-severe (≥5/10 NRS) worst pain experience a clinically important improvement one week later, defined as  ≥ 30% reduction. Secondary outcomes will include patient empowerment and quality of life, carer experience, and cost-effectiveness. For the main analysis, linear mixed models will be used, accounting for clustering and the longitudinal design. Eighty-two patients per service at six services (N = 492) will provide > 90% power. A qualitative sub-study and analyses of structural and process factors will explore opportunities for further refinement and tailoring of the intervention. This pragmatic trial will inform implementation of guidelines across a range of oncology and palliative care outpatient service contexts. If found effective, the implementation strategies will be made freely available on the Wiki alongside the guidelines. Registered 23/01/2015 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12615000064505 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Researcher 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 56 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 19%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 61 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,145,923
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#860
of 7,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,414
of 326,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#43
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 326,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.