Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorHaskell, L.en_US
dc.contributorTavender, E.en_US
dc.contributorO'Brien, S.en_US
dc.contributorWilson, C.en_US
dc.contributorBabl, F.en_US
dc.contributorBorland, M.en_US
dc.contributorSchembri, R.en_US
dc.contributorOrsini, F.en_US
dc.contributorCotterell, E.en_US
dc.contributorSheridan, N.en_US
dc.contributorOakley, E.en_US
dc.contributorDalziel, S.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes BHS dataen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground Bronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users’ perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data. Methods A pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis. Results The cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use. Conclusion Our targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma ( on 2022-05-04T05:49:19Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma ( on 2022-06-01T23:44:34Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2022-06-01T23:44:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021en
dc.titleProcess evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve bronchiolitis management – a PREDICT mixed-methods study.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.contributor.corpauthorPaediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) Network, Australasiaen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleBMC Health Services Researchen_US
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.