FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence):a study protocol

Seers, K. and Cox, K. and Chricton, N.J. and Edwards, R.T. and Eldh, A.C. and Estabrooks, C.A. and Harvey, G. and Hawkes, C. and Kitson, A. and Linck, P.G. and McCarthy, G. and McCormack, B. and Mockford, C. and Rycroft-Malone, J. and Titchen, A. and Wallin, L. (2012) FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence):a study protocol. Implementation Science, 7 (25). ISSN 1748-5908

Full text not available from this repository.


Background Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids. Objectives This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community. Setting and sample Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence Methods and design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.

Item Type:
Journal Article
Journal or Publication Title:
Implementation Science
Additional Information:
European Commission Framework 7 Grant Agreement 223646
Uncontrolled Keywords:
ID Code:
Deposited By:
Deposited On:
10 Jul 2019 09:05
Last Modified:
22 Sep 2023 00:40