The implementation of infant pain practice change resource to improve infant procedural pain practices: a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study.
{"title":"The implementation of infant pain practice change resource to improve infant procedural pain practices: a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study.","authors":"Bonnie Stevens, Mariana Bueno, Melanie Barwick, Marsha Campbell-Yeo, Christine Chambers, Carole Estabrooks, Rachel Flynn, Sharyn Gibbins, Denise Harrison, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Sylvie LeMay, Melanie Noel, Jennifer Stinson, Anne Synnes, Charles Victor, Janet Yamada","doi":"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Implementation of infant pain practice change (ImPaC) is a multifaceted web-based resource to support pain practice change in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). We evaluated the (1) intervention effectiveness and (2) implementation effectiveness of ImPaC using a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study (ie, cluster randomized controlled trial and longitudinal descriptive study). Eligible level 2 and 3 Canadian NICUs were randomized to intervention (INT) or waitlisted to usual care (UC) for 6 months. We assessed the number of painful procedures, proportion of procedures accompanied by valid assessment and evidence-based treatment, and pain intensity to determine intervention effectiveness using intention-to-treat (ITT) and wait-list (WL) analyses. Implementation feasibility and fidelity were explored. Twenty-three NICUs participated (12 INT, 11 UC). Thirty infants/NICU were included in the ITT (INT = 354, UC = 325) and the WL (INT = 678, UC = 325) analyses. In the ITT analysis, the average number of painful procedures/infant/day was lower in the INT group [2.62 (±3.47) vs 3.85 (±4.13), P < 0.001] than in the UC group. Pain assessment was greater in the INT group (34.7% vs 25.5%, P < 0.001) and pain intensity scores were lower [1.47 (1.25) vs 1.86 (1.97); P = 0.029]. Similarly, in the WL analysis, there were fewer painful procedures/infant/day [3.11 (±3.98) vs 3.85 (±4.13), P = 0.003] and increased pain assessment (30.4% vs 25.5%, P = 0.0001) and treatment (31.2% vs 24.0%, P < 0.001) in the INT group. Feasibility and implementation fidelity were associated with improved clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19921,"journal":{"name":"PAIN®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAIN®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003496","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract: Implementation of infant pain practice change (ImPaC) is a multifaceted web-based resource to support pain practice change in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). We evaluated the (1) intervention effectiveness and (2) implementation effectiveness of ImPaC using a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study (ie, cluster randomized controlled trial and longitudinal descriptive study). Eligible level 2 and 3 Canadian NICUs were randomized to intervention (INT) or waitlisted to usual care (UC) for 6 months. We assessed the number of painful procedures, proportion of procedures accompanied by valid assessment and evidence-based treatment, and pain intensity to determine intervention effectiveness using intention-to-treat (ITT) and wait-list (WL) analyses. Implementation feasibility and fidelity were explored. Twenty-three NICUs participated (12 INT, 11 UC). Thirty infants/NICU were included in the ITT (INT = 354, UC = 325) and the WL (INT = 678, UC = 325) analyses. In the ITT analysis, the average number of painful procedures/infant/day was lower in the INT group [2.62 (±3.47) vs 3.85 (±4.13), P < 0.001] than in the UC group. Pain assessment was greater in the INT group (34.7% vs 25.5%, P < 0.001) and pain intensity scores were lower [1.47 (1.25) vs 1.86 (1.97); P = 0.029]. Similarly, in the WL analysis, there were fewer painful procedures/infant/day [3.11 (±3.98) vs 3.85 (±4.13), P = 0.003] and increased pain assessment (30.4% vs 25.5%, P = 0.0001) and treatment (31.2% vs 24.0%, P < 0.001) in the INT group. Feasibility and implementation fidelity were associated with improved clinical outcomes.
期刊介绍:
PAIN® is the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain and publishes original research on the nature,mechanisms and treatment of pain.PAIN® provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the basic and clinical sciences of multidisciplinary interest.