Exploring implementation of intrapartum trial evidence: a qualitative study with clinicians and clinical academics
- PMID: 39334313
- PMCID: PMC11429658
- DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00647-z
Exploring implementation of intrapartum trial evidence: a qualitative study with clinicians and clinical academics
Abstract
Background: Implementing research evidence into clinical practice is challenging. This study aim was to explore implementation of two intrapartum trials with compelling findings: BUMPES (position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with epidural), and RESPITE (remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia).
Methods: A qualitative interview study set in UK National Health Service Trusts and Universities. Purposively sampled investigators from RESPITE and BUMPES trials and clinicians providing intrapartum care: midwives, anaesthetists, and obstetricians, were recruited using existing networks and snowball sampling. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis was underpinned by Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour Change Framework.
Results: Twenty-nine interview participants across 19 maternity units: 11 clinical academics, 10 midwives, 4 obstetricians, 4 anaesthetists. Most (25/29) were aware of one or both trials. BUMPES had been implemented in 4/19 units (one original trial site) and RESPITE in 3/19 units (two trial sites). Access to sufficient resources, training, exposure to interventions, support from leaders, and post-trial dissemination and implementation activities all facilitated uptake of interventions. Some clinicians were opposed to the intervention or disagreed with trial conclusions. However competing priorities in terms of staff time and a plethora of initiatives in maternity care, emerged as a key barrier to implementation.
Conclusions: Compelling trial findings were not implemented widely, and numerous barriers and facilitators were identified. Large-scale improvement programmes and evidence-based national guidelines may mean single trials have limited potential to change practice. There is a need to examine how intervention implementation is prioritised to optimise safety outcomes in the context of workforce restrictions, limited resources and large arrays of competing priorities including statutory requirements, that have increased in maternity care.
Keywords: Implementation science; Maternal health services; Obstetric analgesia; Obstetric labor.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no competing interests relating to the study.
Similar articles
-
Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a practice programme for upright positions in the second stage of labour in China: A qualitative study.Midwifery. 2022 Nov;114:103458. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2022.103458. Epub 2022 Aug 14. Midwifery. 2022. PMID: 35998420
-
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
-
Assessment of the implementation of the model of integrated and humanised midwifery health services in Chile.Midwifery. 2016 Apr;35:53-61. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.01.018. Epub 2016 Feb 8. Midwifery. 2016. PMID: 27060401
-
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun. Campbell Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38873396 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: the EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial.Health Technol Assess. 2024 Jan;28(3):1-120. doi: 10.3310/FGGW6874. Health Technol Assess. 2024. PMID: 38343036 Free PMC article.
References
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources