Protocol for a mixed methods process evaluation for a randomised controlled trial to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines: the iFraP study

<ns3:p> Background High quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians working together to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person’s life, beliefs, and values. The <ns3:bold>i</ns3:bold> mproving uptake of <ns3:bold>Fra</ns3:bold> cture <ns3:bold>P</ns3:bold> revention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprises a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, designed for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultations. The iFraP intervention will be tested in a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to four FLSs in England. This mixed methods process evaluation aims to assess which components of iFraP were delivered and how (fidelity), whether iFraP results in a change in osteoporosis drug treatment initiation rates and how, and how context affects implementation of iFraP and outcomes. Methods We will collect quantitative data using (1) Case Report Forms completed by FLS clinicians; (2) self-reported questionnaires completed by patient participants; and (3) DST analytic data. We will collect qualitative data using (1) semi-structured interviews with patients who receive the iFraP intervention in their FLS appointment, FLS clinicians delivering iFraP appointments, and primary care clinicians that have consulted with a patient following their iFraP FLS appointment; and (2) FLS consultation recordings. A triangulation protocol will be used to integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings to generate novel insights about the intervention under evaluation. Discussion The process evaluation, alongside the trial, will help to understand what elements of the iFraP intervention were delivered and how, the mechanisms of impact and how context affected implementation and outcomes, and intervention acceptability. Mixed methods interpretation will lead to further insights about the implementation of SDM and DSTs in-practice. Trial registration <ns3:bold>ISRCTN:</ns3:bold> 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407 </ns3:p>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
NIHR Open Research
Published
2024-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13751.1
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.26

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Protocol for a mixed methods process evaluation for a randomised controlled trial to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines: the iFraP study

Terence W O’Neill, Clare Jinks, Sarah Bathers, Zoé Paskins et al.
2 citations
NIHR Open Research
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
2.26
article

Protocol for a mixed methods process evaluation for a randomised controlled trial to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines: the iFraP study

Terence W O’Neill, Clare Jinks, Sarah Bathers, Zoé Paskins, Christian Mallen, Laurna Bullock, Emma Clark, Robert Horne, Jane Fleming, Elaine Nicholls, Andrea Cherrington, Sarah Lewis, Jo Smith, David C. Webb, Ida Bentley
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<ns3:p> Background High quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians working together to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person’s life, beliefs, and values. The <ns3:bold>i</ns3:bold> mproving uptake of <ns3:bold>Fra</ns3:bold> cture <ns3:bold>P</ns3:bold> revention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprises a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, designed for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultations. The iFraP intervention will be tested in a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to four FLSs in England. This mixed methods process evaluation aims to assess which components of iFraP were delivered and how (fidelity), whether iFraP results in a change in osteoporosis drug treatment initiation rates and how, and how context affects implementation of iFraP and outcomes. Methods We will collect quantitative data using (1) Case Report Forms completed by FLS clinicians; (2) self-reported questionnaires completed by patient participants; and (3) DST analytic data. We will collect qualitative data using (1) semi-structured interviews with patients who receive the iFraP intervention in their FLS appointment, FLS clinicians delivering iFraP appointments, and primary care clinicians that have consulted with a patient following their iFraP FLS appointment; and (2) FLS consultation recordings. A triangulation protocol will be used to integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings to generate novel insights about the intervention under evaluation. Discussion The process evaluation, alongside the trial, will help to understand what elements of the iFraP intervention were delivered and how, the mechanisms of impact and how context affected implementation and outcomes, and intervention acceptability. Mixed methods interpretation will lead to further insights about the implementation of SDM and DSTs in-practice. Trial registration <ns3:bold>ISRCTN:</ns3:bold> 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407 </ns3:p>

NIHR Open ResearchVol. 4
University of Cambridge (GB), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Manchester (GB), University of Bristol (GB), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Arthritis UK (GB), Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB), NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (GB), University College London (GB), Keele University (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
2.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.