Integrating research into clinical practice for hip fracture rehabilitation: Implementation of a pragmatic RCT

Maureen C. Ashe; Khalil Merali; Nicola Edwards; Claire Schiller; Heather M. Hanson; Lena Fleig; Karim M. Khan; Wendy L. Cook; Heather A. McKay; Maureen C. Ashe; Khalil Merali; Nicola Edwards; Claire Schiller; Heather M. Hanson; Lena Fleig; Karim M. Khan; Wendy L. Cook; Heather A. McKay

doi:10.3934/medsci.2018.2.102

AIMS Medical Science

2018, Volume 5, Issue 2: 102-121. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2018.2.102

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Integrating research into clinical practice for hip fracture rehabilitation: Implementation of a pragmatic RCT

1.
Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, 7F-2635 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
2.
Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia (UBC), 320-5950 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada
3.
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, TRW Building, Room 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 4Z6, Canada
4.
MSB Medical School Berlin, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Psychology, Health Psychology, Calandrellistraße 1-9, 12247 Berlin, Germany
5.
Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 7th Floor-2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
6.
Providence Healthcare, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada

Received: 05 December 2017 Accepted: 02 March 2018 Published: 17 March 2018

Objective: Testing clinical interventions integrated within health care delivery systems provides advantages, but it is important to make the distinction between the design of the intervention and the operational elements required for effective implementation. Thus, the objective of this study was to describe contextual factors for an outpatient follow-up clinic for older adults with hip fracture. Design: Implementation evaluation of a parallel-group 1:1 single-blinded two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Setting: Hospital-based multi-disciplinary outpatient clinic in Vancouver, Canada. Participants: Community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) with hip fracture in the previous year. Interventions: Usual care vs. usual care and a comprehensive geriatric clinic for older adults after hip fracture. The primary outcome for the main study was mobility as measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery. Outcome measures: A description of central tenets of implementation that include recruitment, participant characteristics (reach) and aspects of the innovation (e.g., delivery system, fidelity to the intervention, and exercise dose delivered and enacted. Results: We identified the reach for the intervention and delivered the intervention as intended. There were 53 older adults who enrolled in the study; more than 90% of participants returned for the final assessment. We provide a comprehensive description of the intervention and report on dose delivered to participants, and participants’ 12-month maintenance for balance and strength exercises. Conclusions: It is important to move beyond solely assessing outcomes of an intervention and describe factors that influence effective implementation. This is essential if we are to replicate interventions across setting or populations or deliver interventions at broad scale to affect the health of patients, in future. Trial registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01254942).
- process evaluation,
- older adults,
- hip fracture,
- implementation
Citation: Maureen C. Ashe, Khalil Merali, Nicola Edwards, Claire Schiller, Heather M. Hanson, Lena Fleig, Karim M. Khan, Wendy L. Cook, Heather A. McKay. Integrating research into clinical practice for hip fracture rehabilitation: Implementation of a pragmatic RCT[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2018, 5(2): 102-121. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2018.2.102

Related Papers:

Abstract

Objective: Testing clinical interventions integrated within health care delivery systems provides advantages, but it is important to make the distinction between the design of the intervention and the operational elements required for effective implementation. Thus, the objective of this study was to describe contextual factors for an outpatient follow-up clinic for older adults with hip fracture. Design: Implementation evaluation of a parallel-group 1:1 single-blinded two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Setting: Hospital-based multi-disciplinary outpatient clinic in Vancouver, Canada. Participants: Community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years) with hip fracture in the previous year. Interventions: Usual care vs. usual care and a comprehensive geriatric clinic for older adults after hip fracture. The primary outcome for the main study was mobility as measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery. Outcome measures: A description of central tenets of implementation that include recruitment, participant characteristics (reach) and aspects of the innovation (e.g., delivery system, fidelity to the intervention, and exercise dose delivered and enacted. Results: We identified the reach for the intervention and delivered the intervention as intended. There were 53 older adults who enrolled in the study; more than 90% of participants returned for the final assessment. We provide a comprehensive description of the intervention and report on dose delivered to participants, and participants’ 12-month maintenance for balance and strength exercises. Conclusions: It is important to move beyond solely assessing outcomes of an intervention and describe factors that influence effective implementation. This is essential if we are to replicate interventions across setting or populations or deliver interventions at broad scale to affect the health of patients, in future. Trial registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01254942).

References

[1]	Handoll HH, Sherrington C, Mak JC (2011) Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults. John Wiley Sons, Ltd 129: CD001704.
[2]	Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. (2014) Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 348: g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687
[3]	Eccles MP, Mittman BS (2006) Welcome to Implementation Science. Implementation Sci 1: 1. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1
[4]	Colditz G, (2012) The Promise and Challenges of Dissemination and Implementation Research, In: Brownson RC, Colditz G, Proctor E, Editors, Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health, New York: Oxford University Press, 3–22.
[5]	Geng EH, Peiris D, Kruk ME (2017) Implementation science: Relevance in the real world without sacrificing rigor. PLoS Med 14: e1002288. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002288
[6]	Thoma A, Farrokhyar F, Mcknight L, et al. (2010) Practical tips for surgical research: How to optimize patient recruitment. Can J Surg 53: 205–210.
[7]	Walsh MC, Trenthamdietz A, Gangnon RE, et al. (2012) Selection bias in population-based cancer case-control studies due to incomplete sampling frame coverage. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21: 881–886. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1066
[8]	Groves RM, Fowler FJJ, Couper MP, et al. (2004) Survey methodology. John Wiley & Sons 3: 10–11.
[9]	Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, et al. (2013) The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med 46: 81–95. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
[10]	Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP (2013) Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: Analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ 347: f3755. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3755
[11]	Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM (1999) Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 89: 1322–1327. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
[12]	Durlak JA, Dupre EP (2008) Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 41: 327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
[13]	Nilsen P (2015) Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Sci 10: 53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
[14]	Cook WL, Khan KM, Bech MH, et al. (2011) Post-discharge management following hip fracture-get you back to B4: A parallel group, randomized controlled trial study protocol. BMC Geriatr 11: 30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-11-30
[15]	Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63: e1–e37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004
[16]	Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. (1994) A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: Association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 49: M85–M94. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.2.M85
[17]	Panel on Prevention of Falls in Older Persons American Geriatrics Society and British Geriatrics Society (2011) Summary of the updated AGS and BGS clinical practice guideline for prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 59: 148–157. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03234.x
[18]	Cook WL, Schiller C, Mcallister MM, et al. (2015) Feasibility of a follow-up hip fracture clinic. J Am Geriatr Soc 63: 598–599. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13285
[19]	Stott-Eveneshen S, Sims-Gould J, Mcallister MM, et al. (2017) Reflections on Hip Fracture Recovery From Older Adults Enrolled in a Clinical Trial. Gerontol Geriatr Med 3: 2333721417697663.
[20]	Sims-Gould J, Stott-Eveneshen S, Fleig L, et al. (2017) Patient Perspectives on Engagement in Recovery after Hip Fracture: A Qualitative Study. J Aging Res 2017: 1–9.
[21]	Stewart AL, Mills KM, King AC, et al. (2001) CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: Outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exercise 33: 1126–1141.
[22]	National Institutes on Aging. Available from: https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dgcg/clinical-research-study-investigators-toolbox/adverse-events.
[23]	Fritz S, Lusardi M (2009) White paper: "Walking speed: The sixth vital sign". J Geriatr Phys Ther 32: 46–49.
[24]	Balazs CL, Morellofrosch R (2013) The three R's: How community based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance and reach of science. Environ Justice 6.
[25]	Thomson H (2013) Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: The three R's (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources]). Am J Public Health 103: e17–e23.
[26]	Gordon WA (2009) Clinical trials in rehabilitation research: Balancing rigor and relevance. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90: S1–S2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.138
[27]	Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, et al. (2008) Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol 41: 171–181. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z
[28]	Mcdonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, et al. (2006) What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 7: 9.
[29]	Smit ES, Hoving C, Cox VC, et al. (2012) Influence of recruitment strategy on the reach and effect of a web-based multiple tailored smoking cessation intervention among Dutch adult smokers. Health Educ Res 27: 191–199. doi: 10.1093/her/cyr099
[30]	Ranhoff AH, Holvik K, Martinsen MI, et al. (2010) Older hip fracture patients: Three groups with different needs. BMC Geriatr 10: 65. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-10-65
[31]	Bell KR, Hammond F, Hart T, et al. (2008) Participant recruitment and retention in rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 87: 330–338. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318168d092
[32]	Langford DP, Edwards NY, Gray S, et al. (2017) "Life goes on": Everyday tasks, coping self-efficacy and independence: Exploring older adults' recovery from hip fracture. Qual Health Res.
[33]	Kammerlander C, Roth T, Friedman SM, et al. (2010) Ortho-geriatric service-a literature review comparing different models. Osteoporos Int 21: 637–646.
[34]	Mclellan AR, Gallacher SJ, Fraser M, et al. (2003) The fracture liaison service: Success of a program for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 14: 1028–1034. doi: 10.1007/s00198-003-1507-z
[35]	Bogoch ER, Elliotgibson V, Beaton D, et al. (2017) Fracture prevention in the orthopaedic environment: Outcomes of a coordinator-based fracture liaison service. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 99: 820–831. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.01042
[36]	Makras P, Panagoulia M, Mari A, et al. (2017) Evaluation of the first fracture liaison service in the Greek healthcare setting. Arch Osteoporos 12: 3. doi: 10.1007/s11657-016-0299-7
[37]	Moriwaki K, Noto S (2017) Economic evaluation of osteoporosis liaison service for secondary fracture prevention in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with previous hip fracture in Japan. Osteoporos Int 28: 621–632. doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3777-2
[38]	Langridge CR, Mcquillian C, Watson WS, et al. (2007) Refracture following fracture liaison service assessment illustrates the requirement for integrated falls and fracture services. Calcif Tissue Int 81: 85–91. doi: 10.1007/s00223-007-9042-0
[39]	Horne R, Weinman J, Barber N, et al. (2005) Concordance, adherence and compliance in medicine taking. London: NCCSDO 2005: 40–46.
[40]	Sabaté E, Adherence to long-term therapies: Evidence for action, 2003. Available from: http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/adherence_report/en/.
[41]	Johnson SB (1992) Methodological issues in diabetes research. Measuring adherence. Diabetes Care 15: 1658–1667.
[42]	Sidani S, Fox M, Streiner DL, et al. (2015) Examining the influence of treatment preferences on attrition, adherence and outcomes: A protocol for a two-stage partially randomized trial. BMC Nurs 14: 57. doi: 10.1186/s12912-015-0108-4
[43]	Haentjens P, Magaziner J, ColóNemeric CS, et al. (2010) Meta-analysis: Excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med 152: 380–390. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00008
[44]	Eastwood EA, Magaziner J, Wang J, et al. (2002) Patients with hip fracture: Subgroups and their outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 50: 1240–1249. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50311.x
[45]	Panel on Prevention of Falls in Older Persons AGS, British Geriatrics S (2011) Summary of the Updated American Geriatrics Society/British Geriatrics Society clinical practice guideline for prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 59: 148–157. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03234.x
[46]	Miller WR, Rose GS (2009) Toward a theory of motivational interviewing. Am Psychol 64: 527–537. doi: 10.1037/a0016830
[47]	Michie S, Ashford S, Sniehotta FF, et al. (2011) A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychol Health 26: 1479–1498. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.540664
[48]	Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. (2001) Frailty in older adults: Evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol 56: M146–M156. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)