None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
Justification: Many healthcare practices do not align with current research evidence, prompting healthcare governance agencies to invest in efforts to increase translation of current knowledge into widespread practise. A common approach is the simple dissemination of text-based summaries. While this approach has demonstrated some success, other modes of transmission such as video may be more effective given that is how many of us increasingly consume information. Video-based approaches have emerged as a new way for journal publishers to communicate study results by providing video abstracts. A recent study reported increased knowledge as a result of a web-based video education series that aimed to build capacity for evidence-informed decision-making. However, further evaluative research is needed, due to the paucity of evidence supporting the effect of video mode dissemination for research findings. Aim: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of video versus written research dissemination strategies for promoting knowledge translation in nursing and allied health using a novel helix crossover randomised design. Participants: Registered nurses and allied health professionals from all inpatient wards at the Kingston Centre will be sampled. Method: This single centre study will be evaluated using a 3-group helix crossover randomised study design, which enables each group to experience each condition, but in a different sequence. The 3 conditions are video-based evidence-summary (a), written-based evidence-summary (b), and usual care control condition (no intervention) (c). The material to be disseminated relates to the use of bedside pressure sensor alarms to prevent falls (S1), written falls prevention patient education (S2), and physical activity after diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (S3). This study will be conducted as a 3 level helical crossover model as follows: S1a S2b S3c / S1b S2c S3a / S1c S2a S3b. The evaluation will be broadly based on the four levels of the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model Hierarchy framework, designed to evaluate training programs: (1) reaction, (2) learning, and (3) behaviour, and (4) results Outcomes: Primary outcome: alignment between self reported rating of treatment benefit and current research evidence. Secondary outcomes: (1) self reported confidence of judgement of treatment benefit, (2) self reported perception of whether practice should be implemented or de-implemented, (3) self reported perception of the value of dissemination mode.
Interventions
Data will be collected from three study groups examining the success of two research implementation strategies: ‘video-based’ evidence summary (a) and ‘written-based’ evidence summary (b), compared with ‘usual-care’ control conditions (c). These research implementation strategies will aim to align self-reported benefit ratings with the current evidence-base for the use of bedside pressure sensor alarms to prevent falls (S1), written falls prevention patient education materials (S2), and physical
Data will be collected from three study groups examining the success of two research implementation strategies: ‘video-based’ evidence summary (a) and ‘written-based’ evidence summary (b), compared with ‘usual-care’ control conditions (c). These research implementation strategies will aim to align self-reported benefit ratings with the current evidence-base for the use of bedside pressure sensor alarms to prevent falls (S1), written falls prevention patient education materials (S2), and physical activity after diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (S3). This study will be conducted as a 3-level helical model as follows: S1a S2b S3c / S1b S2c S3a / S1c S2a S3b. The study will be open to participants until data saturation (at least 30 participants in each group have been recruited). This is anticipated to take one month. Recruitment/intervention/data collection all occur within one period (online survey). Therefore, time to completion is determined by each participant. The video-based evidence-summary will be delivered as a 3-minute video. The written-based evidence-summary will be delivered as a full-text research article that may take between 10-30 minutes to read. Completion of the survey questions will take approximately 20 minutes. The video-based evidence-summary was created for the purposes of this study using animation software to summarise the same content presented in the written-based evidence-summary for that health context. Potential participants will be contacted via their staff email and invited to take part in this study. The email will have an access link to the online survey software tool, where they will be provided with information regarding the study. Participants will then be randomised to Group 1, Group 2, or Group 3 on commencement of the survey using an inbuilt randomisation feature within the online survey software tool to receive the different research implementation strategies in each health context area. The video-based, written-based evidence summary and no intervention will be delivered as a one-off intervention in each context area within the online survey. Participants will receive both the video-based intervention and the written-based intervention at the same time using two embedded links within the survey. Participants can select the order they access the interventions and the time between interventions, as there is no washout period between conditions. After implementation strategy provision, participants will be prompted to complete the survey for data collection purposes. There is no planned washout period in this study, as the helix crossover randomised trial design allows the implementation strategies to be delivered simultaneously in different health contexts, minimising the risk of potential "carry-over" or "contamination" effects. No additional measures will be used to monitor adherence to watching the video-based evidence-summary or reading the written-based evidence-summary. Group 1 The S1a S2b S3c study group receives the video-based evidence summary implementation strategy (a) in bedside pressure sensor alarms to prevent falls (S1), the written-based evidence summary implementation strategy (b) in written falls prevention patient education materials (S2), and the no intervention control (c) for physical activity after diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (S3). Group 2 The S1b S2c S3a study group receives the written-based evidence summary implementation strategy (b) in bedside pressure sensor alarms to prevent falls (S1), the no intervention control (c) for written falls prevention patient education materials (S2), and the video-based evidence summary implementation strategy (a) for physical activity after diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (S3). Group 3 The S1c S2a S3b study group receives the no intervention control (c) in bedside pressure sensor alarms to prevent falls (S1), the video-based evidence summary implementation strategy (a) in written falls prevention patient education materials (S2), and the written-based evidence summary implementation strategy (b) for physical activity after diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (S3).
Sponsors
Monash University
Study design
Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Crossover
Primary purpose
Educational / counselling / training
Masking
Open (masking not used)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Registered nurses (RN) and enrolled nurses (EN) from all inpatient wards, as well as allied health professionals (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, dietetics, social work, psychology, podiatry, and exercise physiology) and allied health assistants at each study hospital will be eligible for inclusion
Exclusion criteria
Nursing staff working in aged care, outpatient, or community services, and assistant in nursing (AIN) staff working in any setting will be excluded
Outcome results
None listed