MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096284995 · doi:10.1186/2055-5784-1-2

A cluster-randomized controlled knowledge translation feasibility study in Alberta community pharmacies using the PARiHS framework: study protocol

2015· article· en· W2096284995 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Meagen Rosenthal, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Sherilyn K. D. Houle

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)PharmacyComputer scienceMedicineMedical emergencyFamily medicineAlternative medicineSurgeryComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of benefit for pharmacist involvement in chronic disease management, the provision of these services in community pharmacy has been suboptimal. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework suggests that for knowledge translation to be effective, there must be evidence of benefit, a context conducive to implementation, and facilitation to support uptake. We hypothesize that while the evidence and context components of this framework are satisfied, that uptake into practice has been insufficient because of a lack of facilitation. This protocol describes the rationale and methods of a feasibility study to test a facilitated pharmacy practice intervention based on the PARiHS framework, to assist community pharmacists in increasing the number of formal and documented medication management services completed for patients with diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. METHODS: A cluster-randomized before-after design will compare ten pharmacies from within a single organization, with the unit of randomization being the pharmacy. Pharmacies will be randomized to facilitated intervention based on the PARiHS framework or usual practice. The Alberta Context Tool will be used to establish the context of practice in each pharmacy. Pharmacies randomized to the intervention will receive task-focused facilitation from an external facilitator, with the goal of developing alternative team processes to allow the greater provision of medication management services for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. The primary outcome will be a process evaluation of the needs of community pharmacies to provide more clinical services, the acceptability and uptake of modifications made, and the willingness of pharmacies to participate. Secondary outcomes will include the change in the number of formal and documented medication management services in the aforementioned chronic conditions provided 6 months before, versus after, the intervention between the two groups, and identification of feasible quantitative outcomes for evaluating the effect of the intervention on patient care outcomes. RESULTS: To date, the study has identified and enrolled the ten pharmacies required and initiated the intervention process. CONCLUSION: This study will be the first to examine the role of facilitation in pharmacy practice, with the goal of scalable and sustainable practice change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02191111.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.916
GPT teacher head0.728
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207