BackgroundOver 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes.FindingsWe identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF.ConclusionsDifferences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42015027615 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0534-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAudits of blood transfusion demonstrate around 20% transfusions are outside national recommendations and guidelines. Audit and feedback is a widely used quality improvement intervention but effects on clinical practice are variable, suggesting potential for enhancement. Behavioural theory, theoretical frameworks of behaviour change and behaviour change techniques provide systematic processes to enhance intervention. This study is part of a larger programme of work to promote the uptake of evidence-based transfusion practice.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study are to design two theoretically enhanced audit and feedback interventions; one focused on content and one on delivery, and investigate the feasibility and acceptability.MethodsStudy A (Content): A coding framework based on current evidence regarding audit and feedback, and behaviour change theory and frameworks will be developed and applied as part of a structured content analysis to specify the key components of existing feedback documents. Prototype feedback documents with enhanced content and also a protocol, describing principles for enhancing feedback content, will be developed. Study B (Delivery): Individual semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals and observations of team meetings in four hospitals will be used to specify, and identify views about, current audit and feedback practice. Interviews will be based on a topic guide developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Analysis of transcripts based on these frameworks will form the evidence base for developing a protocol describing an enhanced intervention that focuses on feedback delivery. Study C (Feasibility and Acceptability): Enhanced interventions will be piloted in four hospitals. Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and observations will be used to assess feasibility and acceptability.DiscussionThis intervention development work reflects the UK Medical Research Council’s guidance on development of complex interventions, which emphasises the importance of a robust theoretical basis for intervention design and recommends systematic assessment of feasibility and acceptability prior to taking interventions to evaluation in a full-scale randomised study. The work-up includes specification of current practice so that, in the trials to be conducted later in this programme, there will be a clear distinction between the control (usual practice) conditions and the interventions to be evaluated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0092-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The anti-cancer activities and toxicities of retinoic acid (RA) and synthetic retinoids are mediated through nuclear RA receptors (RARs) and retinoid X receptors (RXRs) that act as transcription factors. Heteroarotinoids (Hets), which contain a heteroatom in the cyclic ring of an arotinoid structure, exhibit similar anti-cancer activities, but reduced toxicity in vivo, in comparison to parent retinoids and RA. A new class of Flexible Hets (Flex-Hets), which contain 3-atom urea or thiourea linkers, regulate growth and differentiation similar to RA, but do not activate RARs or RXRs. In addition, Flex-Hets induce potent apoptosis in ovarian cancer and in head and neck cancer cell lines through the intrinsic mitochondrial pathway. In this study, 4 cervical cancer cell lines were growth inhibited by micromolar concentrations of Flex-Hets to greater extents than RAR/RXR active retinoids. The most potent Flex-Het (SHetA2) inhibited each cell line of the National Cancer Institute's human tumor cell line panel at micromolar concentrations. Oral administration of Flex-Hets (SHetA2 and SHetA4) inhibited growth of OVCAR-3 ovarian cancer xenografts to similar extents as administration of a RAR/RXR-panagonist (SHet50) and Fenretinide (4-HPR) in vivo. None of these compounds induced evidence of skin, bone or liver toxicity, or increased levels of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in the treated mice. Topical application of Flex-Hets did not induce skin irritation in vivo, whereas a RAR/RXR-panagonist (NHet17) and a RARgamma-selective agonist (SHet65) induced similar irritancy as RA. In conclusion, Flex-Hets exhibit improved therapeutic ratios for multiple cancer types over RAR and/or RXR agonists.

No abstract

OBM portends a poor prognosis, however, long-term survival is possible. Patients appear to benefit from therapy, especially selected groups of OBM patients with single brain metastasis treated with radiation therapy and surgery.