↓ Skip to main content

Implementing Kanyini GAP, a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in Australia: findings from a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementing Kanyini GAP, a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in Australia: findings from a qualitative study
Published in
Trials, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0956-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hueiming Liu, Luciana Massi, Anne-Marie Eades, Kirsten Howard, David Peiris, Julie Redfern, Tim Usherwood, Alan Cass, Anushka Patel, Stephen Jan, Tracey-Lea Laba

Abstract

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (PRCTs) aim to assess intervention effectiveness by accounting for 'real life' implementation challenges in routine practice. The methodological challenges of PRCT implementation, particularly in primary care, are not well understood. The Kanyini Guidelines Adherence to Polypill study (Kanyini GAP) was a recent primary care PRCT involving multiple private general practices, Indigenous community controlled health services and private community pharmacies. Through the experiences of Kanyini GAP participants, and using data from study materials, this paper identifies the critical enablers and barriers to implementing a PRCT across diverse practice settings and makes recommendations for future PRCT implementation. Qualitative data from 94 semi-structured interviews (47 healthcare providers (pharmacists, general practitioners, Aboriginal health workers; 47 patients) conducted for the process evaluation of Kanyini GAP was used. Data coded to 'trial impact', 'research motivation' and 'real world' were explored and triangulated with data extracted from study materials (e.g. Emails, memoranda of understanding and financial statements). PRCT implementation was facilitated by an extensive process of relationship building at the trial outset including building on existing relationships between core investigators and service providers. Health providers' and participants' altruism, increased professional satisfaction, collaboration, research capacity and opportunities for improved patient care enabled implementation. Inadequate research infrastructure, excessive administrative demands, insufficient numbers of adequately trained staff and the potential financial impact on private practice were considered implementation barriers. These were largely related to this being the first experience of trial involvement for many sites. The significant costs of addressing these barriers drew study resources from the task of achieving recruitment targets. Conducting PRCTs is crucial to generating credible evidence of intervention effectiveness in routine practice. PRCT implementation needs to account for the particular challenges of implementing collaborative research across diverse stakeholder organisations. Reliance on goodwill to participate is crucial at the outset. However, participation costs, particularly for organisations with little or no research experience, can be substantial and should be factored into PRCT funding models. Investment in a pool to fund infrastructure in the form of primary health research networks will offset some of these costs, enabling future studies to be implemented more cost-effectively. ACTRN126080005833347.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 9%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 33 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,594,535
of 6,409,956 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,005
of 1,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,298
of 201,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#73
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,409,956 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 201,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.