Explaining high and low performers in complex intervention trials: a new model based on diffusion of innovations theory

Abstract

BackgroundComplex intervention trials may require health care organisations to implement new service models. In a recent cluster randomised controlled trial, some participating organisations achieved high recruitment, whereas others found it difficult to assimilate the intervention and were low recruiters. We sought to explain this variation and develop a model to inform organisational participation in future complex intervention trials.MethodsThe trial included 40 general practices in a London borough with high HIV prevalence. The intervention was offering a rapid HIV test as part of the New Patient Health Check. The primary outcome was mean CD4 cell count at diagnosis. The process evaluation consisted of several hundred hours of ethnographic observation, 21 semi-structured interviews and analysis of routine documents (e.g., patient leaflets, clinical protocols) and trial documents (e.g., inclusion criteria, recruitment statistics). Qualitative data were analysed thematically using—and, where necessary, extending—Greenhalgh et al.’s model of diffusion of innovations. Narrative synthesis was used to prepare case studies of four practices representing maximum variety in clinicians’ interest in HIV (assessed by level of serological testing prior to the trial) and performance in the trial (high vs. low recruiters).ResultsHigh-recruiting practices were, in general though not invariably, also innovative practices. They were characterised by strong leadership, good managerial relations, readiness for change, a culture of staff training and available staff time (‘slack resources’). Their front-line staff believed that patients might benefit from the rapid HIV test (‘relative advantage’), were emotionally comfortable administering it (‘compatibility’), skilled in performing it (‘task issues’) and made creative adaptations to embed the test in local working practices (‘reinvention’). Early experience of a positive HIV test (‘observability’) appeared to reinforce staff commitment to recruiting more participants. Low-performing practices typically had less good managerial relations, significant resource constraints, staff discomfort with the test and no positive results early in the trial.ConclusionsAn adaptation of the diffusion of innovations model was an effective analytical tool for retrospectively explaining high and low-performing practices in a complex intervention research trial. Whether the model will work prospectively to predict performance (and hence shape the design of future trials) is unknown.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry number: ISRCTN63473710. Date assigned: 22 April 2010.

"You can save time if…"—A qualitative study on internal factors slowing down clinical trials in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…McMullen et al . explained differences in recruiting performance of sites conducting complex intervention trials in a high-income setting and yielded results similar to ours [54]. They report that centres with good recruitment rates were characterised by strong leadership and by good relations between management and staff and among staff.…”

Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation

“…We devised a loose structure to capture qualitative intelligence on key trial processes. If prior knowledge existed that diversity of engagement within the intervention wards was to be so significant, it may have been possible to target a particular process evaluation framework for analysing outcomes in relation to this diversity, such as the ‘diffusion of innovation model’ 26. It is a possibility that utilisation of differing methods may have provided other answers as to where different elements of the intervention worked, for whom and why.…”

A multifaceted intervention to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in primary care: research co‐creation opportunities in a pilot study

“…GPs are a busy and heterogeneous group of health professionals, whose practice settings vary markedly in terms of administrative and clinical support, resourcing and infrastructure, capacity and readiness for change. 13 Engagement of GPs in co-creation research must occur at times and places that are optimally convenient for them, and must recognise the immense variability among GPs and their work contexts. The following describes examples of how GPs were involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the project in ways that recognise their busyness and diversity.…”