A randomised controlled trial of a tailored multifaceted strategy to promote implementation of a clinical guideline on induced abortion care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of a tailored multifaceted strategy, delivered by a national clinical effectiveness programme, to implement a guideline on induced abortion. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All 26 hospital gynaecology units in Scotland providing induced abortion care. INTERVENTION: Following the identification of barriers to guideline implementation, intervention units received a package comprising audit and feedback, unit educational meetings, dissemination of structured case records and promotion of a patient information booklet. Control units received printed guideline summaries alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Compliance with five key guideline recommendations (primary outcomes) and compliance with other recommendations, patient satisfaction and costs of the implementation strategy (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: No effect was observed for any key recommendation: appointment with a gynaecologist within five days of referral (odds ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.58); ascertainment of cervical cytology history (0.93; 0.36 to 2.40); antibiotic prophylaxis or screening for lower genital tract infection (1.70; 0.71 to 5.99); use of misoprostol as an alternative to gemeprost (1.00; 0.27 to 1.77); and offer of contraceptive supplies at discharge (1.11; 0.48 to 2.53). Median pre-intervention compliance was near optimal for antibiotic prophylaxis and misoprostol use. No intervention benefit was observed for any secondary outcome. The intervention costs an average of pound 2607 per gynaecology unit. CONCLUSIONS: The tailored multifaceted strategy was ineffective. This was possibly attributable to high pre-intervention compliance and the limited impact of the strategy on factors outside the perceived control of clinical staff.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".