Does the site of research evidence generation impact on its translation to clinical practice? A protocol paper

by Dai Pu, Debra Mitchell, Natasha Brusco, Kelly Stephen, Ana Hutchinson, Anna Griffith, Cassie McDonald, Lucy Irwin, Cathy Said, Lisa O’Brien, Jennifer Weller-Newton, Terry P. Haines

The research-to-practice gap is a well-known phenomenon. The adoption of evidence into clinical practice needs to consider the complexity of the health care system and a multitude of contextual issues. Research evidence is usually a form of extrinsic motivation for practice change, but works best when it aligns with the intrinsic values of the system and the people in it. Health professionals tend to refer to internal, local policies, information sources and procedures more than external academic research evidence. This protocol paper describes a mixed-methods study with a quasi-experimental design that seeks to investigate how involvement in research might impact the uptake or implementation of recommendations arising from that research. Research evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mobilisation alarms for falls prevention will be disseminated at 36 hospital wards in Victoria, Australia. Eighteen of these wards will be sites where this research evidence was generated; another 18 wards will not have been involved in evidence generation. The uptake of research evidence will be measured across three time points using quantitative and qualitative data. Trial registration: This study has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000823875p.