What is the role of randomised trials in implementation science?

BACKGROUND: There is a consistent demand for implementation science to inform global efforts to close the gap between evidence and practice. Key evaluation questions for any given implementation strategy concern the assessment and understanding of effects. Randomised trials are generally accepted as offering the most trustworthy design for establishing effectiveness but may be underused in implementation science. MAIN BODY: There is a continuing debate about the primacy of the place of randomised trials in evaluating implementation strategies, especially given the evolution of more rigorous quasi-experimental designs. Further critiques of trials for implementation science highlight that they cannot provide 'real world' evidence, address urgent and important questions, explain complex interventions nor understand contextual influences. We respond to these critiques of trials and highlight opportunities to enhance their timeliness and relevance through innovative designs, embedding within large-scale improvement programmes and harnessing routine data. Our suggestions for optimising the conditions for randomised trials of implementation strategies include strengthening partnerships with policy-makers and clinical leaders to realise the long-term value of rigorous evaluation and accelerating ethical approvals and decluttering governance procedures for lower risk studies. CONCLUSION: Policy-makers and researchers should avoid prematurely discarding trial designs when evaluating implementation strategies and work to enhance the conditions for their conduct.

Barriers and facilitators to use of compression therapy by people with venous leg ulcers: A qualitative exploration.

AIMS: To explore barriers to, and facilitators of, adherence to compression therapy, from the perspective of people with venous leg ulcers. DESIGN: An interpretive, qualitative, descriptive study involving interviews with patients. METHODS: Participants were purposively sampled from respondents to a survey exploring attitudes to compression therapy in people with venous leg ulcers. Sampling continued until data saturation: 25 interviews between December 2019 and July 2020. Inductive thematic analysis of interview transcripts was undertaken to create a framework for the data, followed by deductive analysis informed by the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. RESULTS: A range of knowledge and understanding about the cause of venous leg ulcers and the mechanisms of compression therapy was demonstrated, which was not particularly related to adherence. Participants talked about their experience with different compression methods and their concerns about the length of time healing could take. They also spoke about aspects of the organization of services which affected their care. CONCLUSION: Identifying specific, individual barriers/facilitators to compression therapy is not simple, rather factors combine to make adherence more or less likely or possible. There was no clear relationship between an understanding of the cause of VLUs or the mechanism of compression therapy and adherence; different compression therapies presented different challenges for patients; unintentional non-adherence was frequently mentioned; and the organization of services could impact on adherence. Ways in which people could be supported to adhere to compression therapy are indicated. Implications for practice include issues relating to communication with patients; taking into account patients' lifestyles and ensuring that they know about useful 'aids'; providing services that are accessible and provide continuity of appropriately trained staff; minimizing unintentional non-adherence; and acknowledging that healthcare professionals will always need to support/advise those who cannot tolerate compression. IMPACT: Compression therapy is a cost-effective, evidence-based treatment for venous leg ulcers. However, there is evidence that patients do not always adhere to this therapy and there is limited research investigating reasons why patients do not wear compression. The study found no clear relationship between an understanding of the cause of VLUs or the mechanism of compression therapy and adherence; that different compression therapies presented different challenges for patients; that unintentional non-adherence was frequently mentioned and that the organization of services could impact on adherence. Attending to these findings offers the opportunity to increase the proportion of people undergoing appropriate compression therapy and achieving complete wound healing, the main outcome desired by this group. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient representative sits on the Study Steering Group, contributing to the work from developing the study protocol and interview schedule to interpretation and discussion of findings. Members of a Wounds Research Patient and Public Involvement Forum were consulted about interview questions.

'Real-world' priority setting for service improvement in English primary care: a decentred approach.

This article develops an analysis of population-level priority setting informed by Bevir's decentred theory of governance and drawing on a qualitative study of priority setting for service improvement conducted in the complex multi-layered governance context of English primary care. We show how powerful actors, operating at the meso-level, utilize pluralistic and contradictory elements of complex governance networks to discursively construct, legitimize and enact service improvement priorities. Our analysis highlights the role of situated agency in integrating top-down, bottom-up and horizontal influences on priority setting, which leads to variation in local priorities despite the continuous presence of strong hierarchical influences.

What promotes or prevents greater use of appropriate compression in people with venous leg ulcers? A qualitative interview study with nurses in the north of England using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors that promote and prevent the use of compression therapy in people with venous leg ulcers. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with nurses using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). SETTING: Three National Health Service Trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 15 nurses delivering wound care. RESULTS: Nurses described factors which made provision of compression therapy challenging. Organisational barriers (TDF domains environmental context and resources/knowledge, skills/behavioural regulation) included heavy/increasing caseloads; lack of knowledge/skills and the provision of training; and prescribing issues (variations in bandaging systems/whether nurses could prescribe). Absence of specialist leg ulcer services to refer patients into was perceived as a barrier to providing optimal care by some community-based nurses. Compression use was perceived to be facilitated by clinics for timely initial assessment; continuity of staff and good liaison between vascular/leg ulcer clinics and community teams; clear local policies and care pathways; and opportunities for training such as 'shadowing' in vascular/leg ulcer clinics. Patient engagement barriers (TDF domains goals/beliefs about consequences) focused on getting patients 'on board' with compression, and supporting them in using it. Clear explanations were seen as key in promoting compression use. CONCLUSIONS: Rising workload pressures present significant challenges to enhancing leg ulcer services. There may be opportunities to develop facilitated approaches to enable community nursing teams to make changes to practice, enhancing quality of patient care. The majority of venous leg ulcers could be managed in the community without referral to specialist community services if issues relating to workloads/skills/training are addressed. Barriers to promoting compression use could also be targeted, for example, through the development of clear patient information leaflets. While the patient engagement barriers may be easier/quicker to address than organisational barriers, unless organisational barriers are addressed it seems unlikely that all people who would benefit from compression therapy will receive it.

Rapid Point-of-Care Genotyping to Avoid Aminoglycoside-Induced Ototoxicity in Neonatal Intensive Care.

Importance: Aminoglycosides are commonly prescribed antibiotics used for the treatment of neonatal sepsis. The MT-RNR1 m.1555A>G variant predisposes to profound aminoglycoside-induced ototoxicity (AIO). Current genotyping approaches take several days, which is unfeasible in acute settings. Objective: To develop a rapid point-of-care test (POCT) for the m.1555A>G variant before implementation of this technology in the acute neonatal setting to guide antibiotic prescribing and avoid AIO. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic prospective implementation trial recruited neonates admitted to 2 large neonatal intensive care units between January 6, 2020, and November 30, 2020, in the UK. Interventions: Neonates were tested for the m.1555A>G variant via the rapid POCT on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome assessed the proportion of neonates successfully tested for the variant of all infants prescribed antibiotics. Secondary outcomes measured whether implementation was negatively associated with routine clinical practice and the performance of the system. The study was statistically powered to detect a significant difference between time to antibiotic administration before and after implementation of the MT-RNR1 POCT. Results: A total of 751 neonates were recruited and had a median (range) age of 2.5 (0-198) days. The MT-RNR1 POCT was able to genotype the m.1555A>G variant in 26 minutes. Preclinical validation demonstrated a 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 93.9%-100.0%) and specificity (95% CI, 98.5%-100.0%). Three participants with the m.1555A>G variant were identified, all of whom avoided aminoglycoside antibiotics. Overall, 424 infants (80.6%) receiving antibiotics were successfully tested for the variant, and the mean time to antibiotics was equivalent to previous practice. Conclusions and Relevance: The MT-RNR1 POCT was integrated without disrupting normal clinical practice, and genotype was used to guide antibiotic prescription and avoid AIO. This approach identified the m.1555A>G variant in a practice-changing time frame, and wide adoption could significantly reduce the burden of AIO.

Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science.

Theories occupy different positions in the scientific circle of enquiry as they vary in scope, abstraction, and complexity. Mid-range theories play a crucial bridging role between raw empirical observations and all-encompassing grand-theoretical schemes. A shift of perspective from 'theories' as products to 'theorising' as a process can enable empirical researchers to capitalise on the two-way relationships between empirical data and different levels of theory and contribute to the advancement of knowledge. This can be facilitated by embracing theoretically informative (in addition to merely theoretically informed) research, developing mechanism-based explanations, and broadening the repertoire of grand-theoretical orientations.

Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications: our aims, scope, and reporting expectations.

In the 13 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions, reflecting the growing global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We now receive over 800 submissions annually, and there is a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. To better serve the needs of the research community, we announce our plans to introduce a new journal, Implementation Science Communications, which we believe will support publication of types of research reports currently not often published in Implementation Science. In this editorial, we state both journals' scope and current boundaries and set out our expectations for the scientific reporting, quality, and transparency of the manuscripts we receive.

Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were funded by NIHR in England in 2008 and 2014 as partnerships between universities and surrounding health service organisations, focused on improving the quality of healthcare through the conduct and application of applied health research. The aim of this review is to synthesise learning from evaluations of the CLAHRCs. METHODS: Fifteen databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched to identify any evaluations of CLAHRCs. Current and archived CLAHRC websites and the reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify any additional evaluations. Searches were restricted to English language only. Any publications from evaluations of the CLAHRCs were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled at least one of three pre-specified inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-six evaluations (reported in 37 papers) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Evaluations focused on describing and exploring the formative partnerships, vision, values, structures and processes of CLAHRCs; the nature and role of boundaries; the deployment of knowledge brokers and hybrid roles to support knowledge mobilisation; patient and public involvement; and capacity building. The relative lack of data about the early impact of CLAHRCs on health care provision or outcomes is notable. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evaluative focus on CLAHRCs has been on how they have been organised and on the development of theory around their emergent properties. Evidence is lacking on the impact of CLAHRCs particularly in relation to the knowledge mobilisation processes and practices adopted. Further evaluation of CLAHRCs and other similar research and practice partnerships is warranted and should focus on which knowledge mobilisation approaches work where, how and why. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42016042945 ).

Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness. SETTING/DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only. PARTICIPANTS: Systematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services. RESULTS: We included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Social prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.

Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: The Health and Social Care Act mandated research use as a core consideration of health service commissioning arrangements in England. We undertook a controlled before and after study to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improved the use of research evidence by commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. METHODS: Nine Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the North of England received one of three interventions: (A) access to an evidence briefing service; (B) contact plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or (C) unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Data for the primary outcome measure were collected at baseline and 12 months using a survey instrument devised to assess an organisations' ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Documentary and observational evidence of the use of the outputs of the service were sought. RESULTS: Over the course of the study, the service addressed 24 topics raised by participating CCGs. At 12 months, the evidence briefing service was not associated with increases in CCG capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making, individual intentions to use research findings or perceptions of CCG relationships with researchers. Regardless of intervention received, participating CCGs indicated that they remained inconsistent in their research-seeking behaviours and in their capacity to acquire research. The informal nature of decision-making processes meant that there was little traceability of the use of evidence. Low baseline and follow-up response rates and missing data limit the reliability of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Access to a demand-led evidence briefing service did not improve the uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. Commissioners appear well intentioned but ad hoc users of research. Further research is required on the effects of interventions and strategies to build individual and organisational capacity to use research.

Enhancing the reporting of implementation research.

In the 10 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions received, reflecting the continued global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We receive over 750 submissions annually, and there is now a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. In this editorial, we restate the journal scope and current boundaries. We also identify some specific reporting issues that if addressed will help enhance the scientific reporting quality and transparency of the manuscripts we receive. We hope that this editorial acts as a further guide to researchers seeking to publish their work in Implementation Science.

Assessment of fidelity in an educational workshop designed to increase the uptake of a primary care alcohol screening recommendation.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Educational workshops are a commonly used quality improvement intervention. Often delivered by credible local health professionals who do not necessarily have skills in pedagogy, it can be challenging to achieve high intervention fidelity. This paper summarizes the fidelity assessment of a workshop designed to increase the uptake of a primary care alcohol screening recommendation. METHOD: Delivered in a single health region, the workshop comprised separate sessions delivered by three local health professionals, plus two role plays delivered by a commercial company. Sessions were tailored to local barriers. Meetings were held with presenters and an outline of the barriers was provided. Two researchers attended the workshop, rating the number of specified barriers targeted by presenters and their quality of delivery. Participant responsiveness was measured through attendees' feedback and intervention dose was calculated as the proportion of health professionals who attended and proportion of general practices represented. RESULTS: Exposure was low, with 62 of 545 health professionals from 30 of a possible 80 practices attending. Sixty-five per cent of the specified barriers were targeted. There was variability in quality of delivery and participant responsiveness; challenges included potential mixed messages, overreliance on didactic methods and certain barriers appearing easier to target than others. CONCLUSIONS: The framework provided a rounded assessment of intervention fidelity: intervention coverage was low, adherence was moderate and there was variability in the quality of delivery across presenters. Future studies testing the effectiveness of interventions delivered by local experts with and without brief training in pedagogy/behaviour change would be beneficial.

Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery. We intend to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence service improves uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a controlled before and after study involving CCGs in the North of England. Participating CCGs will receive one of three interventions to support the use of research evidence in their decision-making: 1) consulting plus responsive push of tailored evidence; 2) consulting plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or 3) standard service unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Our primary outcome will be changed at 12 months from baseline of a CCGs ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes will measure individual clinical leads and managers' intentions to use research evidence in decision making. Documentary evidence of the use of the outputs of the service will be sought. A process evaluation will evaluate the nature and success of the interactions both within the sites and between commissioners and researchers delivering the service. DISCUSSION: The proposed research will generate new knowledge of direct relevance and value to the NHS. The findings will help to clarify which elements of the service are of value in promoting the use of research evidence. Those involved in NHS commissioning will be able to use the results to inform how best to build the infrastructure they need to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making and to fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act.

Immediate versus sustained effects: interrupted time series analysis of a tailored intervention.

BACKGROUND: Detailed intervention descriptions and robust evaluations that test intervention impact--and explore reasons for impact--are an essential part of progressing implementation science. Time series designs enable the impact and sustainability of intervention effects to be tested. When combined with time series designs, qualitative methods can provide insight into intervention effectiveness and help identify areas for improvement for future interventions. This paper describes the development, delivery, and evaluation of a tailored intervention designed to increase primary health care professionals' adoption of a national recommendation that women with mild to moderate postnatal depression (PND) are referred for psychological therapy as a first stage treatment. METHODS: Three factors influencing referral for psychological treatment were targeted using three related intervention components: a tailored educational meeting, a tailored educational leaflet, and changes to an electronic system data template used by health professionals during consultations for PND. Evaluation comprised time series analysis of monthly audit data on percentage referral rates and monthly first prescription rates for anti-depressants. Interviews were conducted with a sample of health professionals to explore their perceptions of the intervention components and to identify possible factors influencing intervention effectiveness. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a significant, immediate, positive effect upon percentage referral rates for psychological treatments. This effect was not sustained over the ten month follow-on period. Monthly rates of anti-depressant prescriptions remained consistently high after the intervention. Qualitative interview findings suggest key messages received from the intervention concerned what appropriate antidepressant prescribing is, suggesting this to underlie the lack of impact upon prescribing rates. However, an understanding that psychological treatment can have long-term benefits was also cited. Barriers to referral identified before intervention were cited again after the intervention, suggesting the intervention had not successfully tackled the barriers targeted. CONCLUSION: A time series design allowed the initial and sustained impact of our intervention to be tested. Combined with qualitative interviews, this provided insight into intervention effectiveness. Future research should test factors influencing intervention sustainability, and promote adoption of the targeted behavior and dis-adoption of competing behaviors where appropriate.

Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in health care decision making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge-translation resources.

CONTEXT: Barriers to the use of systematic reviews by policymakers may be overcome by resources that adapt and present the findings in formats more directly tailored to their needs. We performed a systematic scoping review to identify such knowledge-translation resources and evaluations of them. METHODS: Resources were eligible for inclusion in this study if they were based exclusively or primarily on systematic reviews and were aimed at health care policymakers at the national or local level. Resources were identified by screening the websites of health technology assessment agencies and systematic review producers, supplemented by an email survey. Electronic databases and proceedings of the Cochrane Colloquium and HTA International were searched as well for published and unpublished evaluations of knowledge-translation resources. Resources were classified as summaries, overviews, or policy briefs using a previously published classification. FINDINGS: Twenty knowledge-translation resources were identified, of which eleven were classified as summaries, six as overviews, and three as policy briefs. Resources added value to systematic reviews by, for example, evaluating their methodological quality or assessing the reliability of their conclusions or their generalizability to particular settings. The literature search found four published evaluation studies of knowledge-translation resources, and the screening of abstracts and contact with authors found three more unpublished studies. The majority of studies reported on the perceived usefulness of the service, although there were some examples of review-based resources being used to assist actual decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review producers provide a variety of resources to help policymakers, of which focused summaries are the most common. More evaluations of these resources are required to ensure users' needs are being met, to demonstrate their impact, and to justify their funding.

Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity. METHODS: We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Does dissemination extend beyond publication: a survey of a cross section of public funded research in the UK.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, most funding bodies now expect a commitment or effort on the part of grant holders to disseminate the findings of their research. The emphasis is on ensuring that publicly funded research is made available, can be used to support decision making, and ultimately improve the quality and delivery of healthcare provided. In this study, we aimed to describe the dissemination practices and impacts of applied and public health researchers working across the UK. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 485 UK-based principal investigators of publicly funded applied and public health research. Participants were contacted by email and invited to complete an online questionnaire via an embedded URL. Gift vouchers were given to all participants who completed the questionnaire. Four reminder emails were sent out to non-respondents at one, two, three, and four weeks; a fifth postal reminder was also undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 243/485 (50%) questionnaires were returned (232 completed, 11 declining to participate). Most researchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to research dissemination. However, most dissemination activity beyond the publishing of academic papers appears to be undertaken an ad hoc fashion. There is some evidence that access to dissemination advice and support may facilitate more policy interactions; though access to such resources is lacking at an institutional level, and advice from funders can be variable. Although a minority of respondents routinely record details about the impact of their research, when asked about impact in relation to specific research projects most were able to provide simple narrative descriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to disseminating the findings of their work. Although researchers are focussed on academic publication, a range of dissemination activities are being applied albeit in an ad hoc fashion. However, what constitutes effective dissemination (in terms of impact and return on investment) remains unclear. Researchers need greater and clearer guidance on how best to plan, resource, and facilitate their dissemination activities.

Effects of a financial incentive on health researchers' response to an online survey: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonresponse to questionnaires can affect the validity of surveys and introduce bias. Offering financial incentives can increase response rates to postal questionnaires, but the effect of financial incentives on response rates to online surveys is less clear. OBJECTIVE: As part of a survey, we aimed to test whether knowledge of a financial incentive would increase the response rate to an online questionnaire. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 485 UK-based principal investigators of publicly funded health services and population health research. Participants were contacted by email and invited to complete an online questionnaire via an embedded URL. Participants were randomly allocated to groups with either "knowledge of" or "no knowledge of" a financial incentive ( pound10 Amazon gift voucher) to be provided on completion of the survey. At the end of the study, gift vouchers were given to all participants who completed the questionnaire regardless of initial randomization status. Four reminder emails (sent from the same email address as the initial invitation) were sent out to nonrespondents at one, two, three, and four weeks; a fifth postal reminder was also undertaken. The primary outcome measure for the trial was the response rate one week after the second reminder. Response rate was also measured at the end of weeks one, two, three, four, and five, and after a postal reminder was sent. RESULTS: In total, 243 (50%) questionnaires were returned (232 completed, 11 in which participation was declined). One week after the second reminder, the response rate in the "knowledge" group was 27% (66/244) versus 20% (49/241) in the "no knowledge" group (chi(2) (1) = 3.0, P = .08). The odds ratio for responding among those with knowledge of an incentive was 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 - 2.21). At the third reminder, participants in the "no knowledge" group were informed about the incentive, ending the randomized element of the study. However we continued to follow up all participants, and from reminder three onwards, no significant differences were observed in the response rates of the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of a financial incentive did not significantly increase the response rate to an online questionnaire. Future surveys should consider including a randomized element to further test the utility of offering incentives of other types and amounts to participate in online questionnaires. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN59912797; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN59912797 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5iPPLbT7s).

Translating research into practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB): a protocol for a programme of research.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has funded nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). Each CLAHRC is a partnership between higher education institutions (HEIs) and the NHS in nine UK regional health economies. The CLAHRC for Leeds, York, and Bradford comprises two 'research themes' and three 'implementation themes.' One of these implementation themes is Translating Research into Practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB). TRiPLaB aims to develop, implement, and evaluate methods for inducing and sustaining the uptake of research knowledge into practice in order to improve the quality of health services for the people of Leeds and Bradford. METHODS: TRiPLaB is built around a three-stage, sequential, approach using separate, longitudinal case studies conducted with collaborating NHS organisations, TRiPLaB will select robust innovations to implement, conduct a theory-informed exploration of the local context using a variety of data collection and analytic methods, and synthesise the information collected to identify the key factors influencing the uptake and adoption of targeted innovations. This synthesis will inform the development of tailored, multifaceted, interventions designed to increase the translation of research findings into practice. Mixed research methods, including time series analysis, quasi-experimental comparison, and qualitative process evaluation, will be used to evaluate the impact of the implementation strategies deployed. CONCLUSION: TRiPLaB is a theory-informed, systematic, mixed methods approach to developing and evaluating tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing the translation of research-based findings into practice in one UK health economy. Through active collaboration with its local NHS, TRiPLaB aims to improve the quality of health services for the people of Leeds and Bradford and to contribute to research knowledge regarding the interaction between context and adoption behaviour in health services.