Using Multi-Site Research Results to Impact Local Pediatric Pain Evidence-Based Practice: Innovations and Outcomes.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Nicole L Bohr, Cynthia M LaFond, Mary Cazzell, Monica Gonzalez, Elyse Laures, Mallory A Perry-Eaddy, Kirsten S Hanrahan, Ann Marie McCarthy
{"title":"Using Multi-Site Research Results to Impact Local Pediatric Pain Evidence-Based Practice: Innovations and Outcomes.","authors":"Nicole L Bohr, Cynthia M LaFond, Mary Cazzell, Monica Gonzalez, Elyse Laures, Mallory A Perry-Eaddy, Kirsten S Hanrahan, Ann Marie McCarthy","doi":"10.1111/wvn.70011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dissemination of results following clinical trials and community-based research provides value to participants and communities beyond the intent of the primary study. Organizations participating in multi-site research may see similar benefits if local results are shared; however, it is not standard practice. Evaluation of the impact of results sharing in multi-site research is needed.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess the benefits of organizational participation in a multi-site pediatric pain study when results were shared, identify how sites applied local results, and the outcomes of participation, including subsequent improvement efforts and scholarship.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following data collection for a 12-hospital multi-site study, site research teams shared their experiences collecting the data and lessons learned. All sites received a packet with overall results, their local results, and an interpretation guide. 4 years later, the sites were surveyed about initiatives that were undertaken because of the primary study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following data collection, 10 of 12 sites described unanticipated benefits of participation, including identifying gaps and strengths of documentation, generation of new practice questions, and identification of new opportunities for improvement. Seven sites answered the follow-up survey 4 years later. Most sites (n = 6, 85.7%) used their data to inform multiple practice changes (M = 2.8, SD 0.75), including changes in pain documentation (n = 5, 83.3%), assessment (n = 4, 66.7%), policy (n = 4, 66.7%), and treatments (n = 4, 66.7%). Five sites reported an average of 2.4 (SD 1.14) additional activities stimulated by participation, but not directly due to data. Three sites used results for American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet Recognition applications.</p><p><strong>Linking evidence to action: </strong>When multi-site investigators provide local data, organizations see long-term benefits, including new collaborations, quality improvement efforts, and research. Additional exploration of collaborative strategies between investigators and practice settings in multi-site research is needed for pediatric pain management and beyond.</p>","PeriodicalId":49355,"journal":{"name":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","volume":"22 2","pages":"e70011"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961342/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.70011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Dissemination of results following clinical trials and community-based research provides value to participants and communities beyond the intent of the primary study. Organizations participating in multi-site research may see similar benefits if local results are shared; however, it is not standard practice. Evaluation of the impact of results sharing in multi-site research is needed.

Aims: To assess the benefits of organizational participation in a multi-site pediatric pain study when results were shared, identify how sites applied local results, and the outcomes of participation, including subsequent improvement efforts and scholarship.

Methods: Following data collection for a 12-hospital multi-site study, site research teams shared their experiences collecting the data and lessons learned. All sites received a packet with overall results, their local results, and an interpretation guide. 4 years later, the sites were surveyed about initiatives that were undertaken because of the primary study.

Results: Following data collection, 10 of 12 sites described unanticipated benefits of participation, including identifying gaps and strengths of documentation, generation of new practice questions, and identification of new opportunities for improvement. Seven sites answered the follow-up survey 4 years later. Most sites (n = 6, 85.7%) used their data to inform multiple practice changes (M = 2.8, SD 0.75), including changes in pain documentation (n = 5, 83.3%), assessment (n = 4, 66.7%), policy (n = 4, 66.7%), and treatments (n = 4, 66.7%). Five sites reported an average of 2.4 (SD 1.14) additional activities stimulated by participation, but not directly due to data. Three sites used results for American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet Recognition applications.

Linking evidence to action: When multi-site investigators provide local data, organizations see long-term benefits, including new collaborations, quality improvement efforts, and research. Additional exploration of collaborative strategies between investigators and practice settings in multi-site research is needed for pediatric pain management and beyond.

使用多站点研究结果影响局部儿科疼痛循证实践:创新和结果。
背景:临床试验和社区研究结果的传播为参与者和社区提供了超出原始研究目的的价值。参与多地点研究的组织如果分享当地的结果,可能会看到类似的好处;然而,这不是标准做法。需要对多站点研究成果共享的影响进行评估。目的:评估在结果共享的情况下,组织参与多地点儿童疼痛研究的好处,确定地点如何应用局部结果,以及参与的结果,包括随后的改进努力和奖学金。方法:通过对12家医院多站点的数据收集,站点研究小组分享了他们收集数据的经验和教训。所有站点都收到一个包,其中包含总体结果、本地结果和解释指南。4年后,对这些地点进行了调查,了解由于最初的研究而采取的措施。结果:在数据收集之后,12个站点中有10个描述了参与的意想不到的好处,包括识别文档的差距和优势,生成新的实践问题,以及识别新的改进机会。4年后,有7家网站回答了后续调查。大多数站点(n = 6, 85.7%)使用他们的数据来告知多种实践变化(M = 2.8, SD = 0.75),包括疼痛记录(n = 5, 83.3%)、评估(n = 4, 66.7%)、政策(n = 4, 66.7%)和治疗(n = 4, 66.7%)的变化。五个站点报告了平均2.4 (SD 1.14)的额外活动,但不是直接由数据引起的。三个网站使用了美国护士资格认证中心磁铁识别应用程序的结果。将证据与行动联系起来:当多地点调查人员提供当地数据时,组织可以看到长期利益,包括新的合作、质量改进工作和研究。研究人员和多地点研究的实践设置之间的合作策略的进一步探索需要儿童疼痛管理和超越。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
11.60%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The leading nursing society that has brought you the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is pleased to bring you Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. Now publishing 6 issues per year, this peer-reviewed journal and top information resource from The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International, uniquely bridges knowledge and application, taking a global approach in its presentation of research, policy and practice, education and management, and its link to action in real world settings. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is written especially for: Clinicians Researchers Nurse leaders Managers Administrators Educators Policymakers Worldviews on Evidence­-Based Nursing is a primary source of information for using evidence-based nursing practice to improve patient care by featuring: Knowledge synthesis articles with best practice applications and recommendations for linking evidence to action in real world practice, administra-tive, education and policy settings Original articles and features that present large-scale studies, which challenge and develop the knowledge base about evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare Special features and columns with information geared to readers’ diverse roles: clinical practice, education, research, policy and administration/leadership Commentaries about current evidence-based practice issues and developments A forum that encourages readers to engage in an ongoing dialogue on critical issues and questions in evidence-based nursing Reviews of the latest publications and resources on evidence-based nursing and healthcare News about professional organizations, conferences and other activities around the world related to evidence-based nursing Links to other global evidence-based nursing resources and organizations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信