Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/405
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPonsford, Jennie-
dc.contributor.otherTavender, Emma-
dc.contributor.otherBosch, Marije-
dc.contributor.otherGruen, Russell-
dc.contributor.otherGreen, Sally-
dc.contributor.otherMichie, Susan-
dc.contributor.otherBrennan, Sue-
dc.contributor.otherFrancis, Jill-
dc.contributor.otherKnott, Jonathan-
dc.contributor.otherMeares, Sue-
dc.contributor.otherSmyth, Tracy-
dc.contributor.otherO'Connor, Denise-
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-07T01:31:44Z-
dc.date.available2015-10-07T01:31:44Z-
dc.date.issued2015-05-
dc.identifier.citationImplement Sci. 2015 May 25;10:74en_US
dc.identifier.issn1748-5908en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/405-
dc.description.abstractBackground Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED), variations in practice exist. Interventions designed to implement recommended behaviours can reduce this variation. Using theory to inform intervention development is advocated; however, there is no consensus on how to select or apply theory. Integrative theoretical frameworks, based on syntheses of theories and theoretical constructs relevant to implementation, have the potential to assist in the intervention development process. This paper describes the process of applying two theoretical frameworks to investigate the factors influencing recommended behaviours and the choice of behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery for an implementation intervention. Methods A stepped approach was followed: (i) identification of locally applicable and actionable evidence-based recommendations as targets for change, (ii) selection and use of two theoretical frameworks for identifying barriers to and enablers of change (Theoretical Domains Framework and Model of Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations) and (iii) identification and operationalisation of intervention components (behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery) to address the barriers and enhance the enablers, informed by theory, evidence and feasibility/acceptability considerations. We illustrate this process in relation to one recommendation, prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) by ED staff using a validated tool. Results Four recommendations for managing mild traumatic brain injury were targeted with the intervention. The intervention targeting the PTA recommendation consisted of 14 behaviour change techniques and addressed 6 theoretical domains and 5 organisational domains. The mode of delivery was informed by six Cochrane reviews. It was delivered via five intervention components : (i) local stakeholder meetings, (ii) identification of local opinion leader teams, (iii) a train-the-trainer workshop for appointed local opinion leaders, (iv) local training workshops for delivery by trained local opinion leaders and (v) provision of tools and materials to prompt recommended behaviours. Conclusions Two theoretical frameworks were used in a complementary manner to inform intervention development in managing mild traumatic brain injury in the ED. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention is being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial, part of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program.en_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.subjectMonash-Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.subjectTraumatic Brain Injuryen_US
dc.subjectMild Traumatic Brain Injuryen_US
dc.subjectIntervention Designen_US
dc.subjectIntervention Developmenten_US
dc.subjectTheory Useen_US
dc.subjectTheoretical Domains Frameworken_US
dc.subjectDiffusion of innovations in service organisationsen_US
dc.subjectEducationen_US
dc.titleDeveloping a targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention using two theoretical frameworks to address health professional and organisational factors: a case study to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13012-015-0264-7en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleImplementation Scienceen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26003785en_US
dc.description.affiliatesNational Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Trauma, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UKen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UKen_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesMelbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialDescriptive Studyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Emergency Care
Head & Neck
Neurosciences
Rehabilitation

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
Developing a targetedMain article1.86 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.