Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011 Nov;96(6):F434-9. doi: 10.1136/adc.2010.207522. Epub 2011 Mar 10.
Research findings are not rapidly or fully implemented into policies and practice in care.
To assess whether an 'active' strategy was more likely to lead to changes in policy and practice in preterm baby care than traditional information dissemination.
Cluster randomised trial.
180 neonatal units (87 active, 93 control) in England; clinicians from active arm units; babies born <27 weeks gestation. CONTROL ARM: Dissemination of research report; slides; information about newborn care position statement. ACTIVE ARM: As above plus offer to become 'regional 'champion' (attend two workshops, support clinicians to implement research evidence regionally), or attend one workshop, promote implementation of research evidence locally.
timing of surfactant administration; admission temperature; staffing of resuscitation team present at birth.
48/87 Lead clinicians in the active arm attended one or both workshops. There was no evidence of difference in post-intervention policies between trial arms. Practice outcomes based on babies in the active (169) and control arms (186), in 45 and 49 neonatal units respectively, showed active arm babies were more likely to have been given surfactant on labour ward (RR=1.30; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.70); p=0.06); to have a higher temperature on admission to neonatal intensive care unit (mean difference=0.29(o)C; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; p=0.03); and to have had the baby's trunk delivered into a plastic bag (RR=1.27; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.60; p=0.04) than the control group. The effect on having an 'ideal' resuscitation team at birth was in the same direction of benefit for the active arm (RR=1.18; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; p=0.09). The costs of the intervention were modest.
This is the first trial to evaluate methods for transferring information from neonatal research into local policies and practice in England. An active approach to research dissemination is both feasible and cost-effective.
Current controlled trials ISRCTN89683698.
研究结果并未迅速或完全地应用于医疗实践中。
评估“主动”策略是否比传统信息传播更有可能导致早产儿护理政策和实践的改变。
整群随机试验。
英格兰 180 个新生儿单位(87 个主动组,93 个对照组);主动组单位的临床医生;胎龄<27 周的婴儿。
研究报告、幻灯片、新生儿护理立场声明的信息传播。
以上内容加成为“区域‘冠军’(参加两个研讨会,支持临床医生在区域内实施研究证据)”,或参加一个研讨会,在当地推广实施研究证据。
表面活性剂给药时间;入院温度;复苏团队在出生时的人员配备。
主动组的 48/87 名首席临床医生参加了一个或两个研讨会。试验臂之间的干预后政策没有证据表明存在差异。基于主动组(169 名婴儿)和对照组(186 名婴儿)、45 个和 49 个新生儿单位的实践结果显示,主动组的婴儿更有可能在产房给予表面活性剂(RR=1.30;95%CI99%置信区间 0.99 至 1.70;p=0.06);入院新生儿重症监护病房时体温更高(平均差异=0.29(o)C;95%CI99%置信区间 0.22 至 0.55;p=0.03);婴儿躯干进入塑料袋(RR=1.27;95%CI99%置信区间 1.01 至 1.60;p=0.04)的可能性高于对照组。主动组出生时“理想”复苏团队的效果也朝着有益的方向发展(RR=1.18;95%CI99%置信区间 0.97 至 1.43;p=0.09)。干预的成本适中。
这是首次评估将新生儿研究信息转移到英格兰当地政策和实践中的方法的试验。主动传播研究信息既可行又具有成本效益。
当前对照试验 ISRCTN89683698。