"Push" versus "Pull" for mobilizing pain evidence into practice across different health professions: a protocol for a randomized trial
- PMID: 23176444
- PMCID: PMC3520813
- DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-115
"Push" versus "Pull" for mobilizing pain evidence into practice across different health professions: a protocol for a randomized trial
Abstract
Background: Optimizing pain care requires ready access and use of best evidence within and across different disciplines and settings. The purpose of this randomized trial is to determine whether a technology-based "push" of new, high-quality pain research to physicians, nurses, and rehabilitation and psychology professionals results in better knowledge and clinical decision making around pain, when offered in addition to traditional "pull" evidence technology. A secondary objective is to identify disciplinary variations in response to evidence and differences in the patterns of accessing research evidence.
Methods: Physicians, nurses, occupational/physical therapists, and psychologists (n = 670) will be randomly allocated in a crossover design to receive a pain evidence resource in one of two different ways. Evidence is extracted from medical, nursing, psychology, and rehabilitation journals; appraised for quality/relevance; and sent out (PUSHed) to clinicians by email alerts or available for searches of the accumulated database (PULL). Participants are allocated to either PULL or PUSH + PULL in a randomized crossover design. The PULL intervention has a similar interface but does not send alerts; clinicians can only go to the site and enter search terms to retrieve evidence from the cumulative and continuously updated online database. Upon entry to the trial, there is three months of access to PULL, then random allocation. After six months, crossover takes place. The study ends with a final three months of access to PUSH + PULL. The primary outcomes are uptake and application of evidence. Uptake will be determined by embedded tracking of what research is accessed during use of the intervention. A random subset of 30 participants/ discipline will undergo chart-stimulated recall to assess the nature and depth of evidence utilization in actual case management at baseline and 9 months. A different random subset of 30 participants/ discipline will be tested for their skills in accessing evidence using a standardized simulation test (final 3 months). Secondary outcomes include usage and self-reported evidence-based practice attitudes and behaviors measured at baseline, 3, 9, 15 and 18 months.
Discussion: The trial will inform our understanding of information preferences and behaviors across disciplines/practice settings. If this intervention is effective, sustained support will be sought from professional/health system initiatives with an interest in optimizing pain management.
Trial registration: Registered as NCT01348802 on clinicaltrials.gov.
Figures
Similar articles
-
The yield and usefulness of PAIN+ and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial.Arch Physiother. 2021 Apr 1;11(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7. Arch Physiother. 2021. PMID: 33789739 Free PMC article.
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
A phase III wait-listed randomised controlled trial of novel targeted inter-professional clinical education intervention to improve cancer patients' reported pain outcomes (The Cancer Pain Assessment (CPAS) Trial): study protocol.Trials. 2019 Jan 18;20(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-3152-z. Trials. 2019. PMID: 30658657 Free PMC article.
-
Behavioral Counseling for Skin Cancer Prevention: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 Mar. Report No.: 17-05234-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018 Mar. Report No.: 17-05234-EF-1. PMID: 29697227 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016. PMID: 27532314 Review.
Cited by
-
A structured classification of the types of pain research studies accessed by different health professionals involved in pain management.Br J Pain. 2020 Nov;14(4):227-237. doi: 10.1177/2049463719857100. Epub 2019 Jul 9. Br J Pain. 2020. PMID: 33194187 Free PMC article.
-
A scoping review of the potential for chart stimulated recall as a clinical research method.BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):583. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2539-y. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017. PMID: 28830405 Free PMC article.
-
Strategies to improve the implementation of intensive lifestyle interventions for obesity.Front Public Health. 2023 Jul 25;11:1202545. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1202545. eCollection 2023. Front Public Health. 2023. PMID: 37559739 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Reviewing opioid use, monitoring, and legislature: Nursing perspectives.Int J Nurs Sci. 2017 Sep 14;4(4):430-436. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.09.001. eCollection 2017 Oct 10. Int J Nurs Sci. 2017. PMID: 31406787 Free PMC article.
-
A modified evidence-based practice- knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and decisions/outcomes questionnaire is valid across multiple professions involved in pain management.BMC Med Educ. 2014 Dec 14;14:263. doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0263-4. BMC Med Educ. 2014. PMID: 25495467 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Ramage-Morin PL. Chronic pain in Canadian seniors. Health Rep. 2008;19:37–52. - PubMed
-
- Phillips CJ, Schopflocher D. Chronic Pain: A Health Policy Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell, Weinham; 2008. The economics of Chronic Pain.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical