Feasibility of blinding spinal manual therapy interventions among participants and outcome assessors: protocol for a blinding feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Blinding is a methodologically important aspect in randomised controlled trials yet frequently overlooked in trials of spinal manual therapy interventions for back pain. To help inform the blinding methods of a future, double-placebo-controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain, we set four objectives: (1) to assess the feasibility of blinding participants, randomly allocated to an active or placebo-control spinal manual therapy intervention protocol, (2) to assess the feasibility of blinding outcome assessors within the trial, (3) to explore the influence of spinal manual therapy experience and low back pain on blinding, and (4) to explore factors contributing to perceptions about intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two-parallel-group, single-centre, placebo-controlled, methodological blinding feasibility randomised trial. We will recruit between 60 and 100 adults with or without back pain and with or without experience of spinal manual therapy from Zurich, Switzerland. Participants will be randomised to either an active spinal manual therapy or a placebo-control spinal manual therapy protocol-both interventions delivered over two study visits, up to two weeks apart. The primary outcome is participant blinding using the Bang blinding index within each intervention arm immediately after each of the two study visits. Secondary outcomes are participant blinding using the James blinding index, outcome assessor blinding (Bang and James blinding indices), self-reported factors influencing perceived intervention assignment among participants and outcome assessors, and participant-reported credibility and expectancy of study interventions. Other outcomes-included to blind the study objective from participants-are lumbar spine range of motion, self-rated general health, satisfaction with care, pain intensity, and function. Intervention provider outcomes include intervention component fidelity and quality of intervention delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The independent ethics commission of Canton Zurich granted ethical approval for this study (KEK 2023-00381). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated in scientific conferences and a peer-reviewed publication and inform the blinding methods of a future double-placebo controlled trial comparing spinal manual therapy and nerve root injection for lumbosacral radicular pain-the SALuBRITY trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05778396.

Is blinding in studies of manual soft tissue mobilisation of the back possible? A feasibility randomised controlled trial with Swiss graduate students.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-centre, two-parallel group, methodological randomised controlled trial to assess blinding feasibility. BACKGROUND: Trials of manual therapy interventions of the back face methodological challenges regarding blinding feasibility and success. We assessed the feasibility of blinding an active manual soft tissue mobilisation and control intervention of the back. We also assessed whether blinding is feasible among outcome assessors and explored factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment. METHODS: On 7-8 November 2022, 24 participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to active or control manual interventions of the back. The active group (n = 11) received soft tissue mobilisation of the lumbar spine. The control group (n = 13) received light touch over the thoracic region with deep breathing exercises. The primary outcome was blinding of participants immediately after a one-time intervention session, as measured by the Bang blinding index (Bang BI). Bang BI ranges from -1 (complete opposite perceptions of intervention received) to 1 (complete correct perceptions), with 0 indicating 'random guessing'-balanced 'active' and 'control' perceptions within an intervention arm. Secondary outcomes included blinding of outcome assessors and factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment among both participants and outcome assessors, explored via thematic analysis. RESULTS: 24 participants were analysed following an intention-to-treat approach. 55% of participants in the active manual soft tissue mobilisation group correctly perceived their group assignment beyond chance immediately after intervention (Bang BI: 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25 to 0.84]), and 8% did so in the control group (0.08 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.53]). Bang BIs in outcome assessors were 0.09 (-0.12 to 0.30) and -0.10 (-0.29 to 0.08) for active and control participants, respectively. Participants and outcome assessors reported varying factors related to their perceptions about intervention assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of participants allocated to an active soft tissue mobilisation of the back was not feasible in this methodological trial, whereas blinding of participants allocated to the control intervention and outcome assessors was adequate. Findings are limited due to imprecision and suboptimal generalisability to clinical settings. Careful thinking and consideration of blinding in manual therapy trials is warranted and needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05822947 (retrospectively registered).

Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe-protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies.

BACKGROUND: With a high mortality of 12.6% of all cancer cases, colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for substantial burden of disease in Europe. In the past decade, more and more countries have introduced organized colorectal cancer screening programs, making systematic screening available to entire segments of a population, typically based on routine stool tests and/or colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of organized screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality has been confirmed, studies continuously report persistent program implementation challenges. This systematic review will synthesize the literature on organized CRC screening programs. Its aim is to understand what is currently known about the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these programs and about the implementation strategies used to navigate these determinants. METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies of any research design will be conducted. CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus will be searched. Websites of (non-)government health care organizations and websites of organizations affiliated with authors of included studies will be screened for unpublished evaluation reports. Existing organized CRC screening programs will be contacted with a request to share program-specific grey literature. Two researchers will independently screen each publication in two rounds for eligibility. Included studies will focus on adult populations involved in the implementation of organized CRC screening programs and contain information about implementation determinants/ strategies. Publications will be assessed for their risk of bias. Data extraction will include study aim, design, location, setting, sample, methods, and measures; program characteristics; implementation stage, framework, determinants, strategies, and outcomes; and service and other outcome information. Findings will be synthesized narratively using the three stages of thematic synthesis. DISCUSSION: With its sole focus on the implementation of organized CRC screening programs, this review will help to fill a central knowledge gap in the literature on colorectal cancer screening. Its findings can inform the decision-making in policy and practice needed to prioritize resources for establishing new and maintaining existing programs in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022306580).

Implementation of infection prevention and control for hospitalized neonates: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The most prevalent infections encountered in neonatal care are healthcare-associated infections. The majority of healthcare-associated infections are considered preventable with evidence-based infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. However, substantial knowledge gaps exist in IPC implementation in neonatal care. Furthermore, the knowledge of factors which facilitate or challenge the uptake and sustainment of IPC programmes in neonatal units is limited. The integration of implementation science approaches in IPC programmes in neonatal care aims to address these problems. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this narrative review was to identify determinants which have been reported to influence the implementation of IPC programmes and best practices in inpatient neonatal care settings. SOURCES: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) in May 2022. Primary study reports published in English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Danish, Swedish or Norwegian since 2000 were eligible for inclusion. Included studies focused on IPC practices in inpatient neonatal care settings and reported determinants which influenced implementation processes. CONTENT: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to identify and cluster reported determinants to the implementation of IPC practices and programmes in neonatal care. Most studies reported challenges and facilitators at the organizational level as particularly relevant to implementation processes. The commonly reported determinants included staffing levels, work- and caseloads, as well as aspects of organizational culture such as communication and leadership. IMPLICATIONS: The presented knowledge about factors influencing neonatal IPC can support the design, implementation, and evaluation of IPC practices.

A Modified Implementation Mapping Methodology for Evaluating and Learning From Existing Implementation.

When empirically supported interventions are implemented in real-world practice settings, the process of how these interventions are implemented is highly relevant for their potential success. Implementation Mapping is a method that provides step-by-step guidance for systematically designing implementation processes that fit the respective intervention and context. It includes needs assessments among relevant stakeholders, the identification of implementation outcomes and determinants, the selection and design of appropriate implementation strategies, the production of implementation protocols and an implementation outcome evaluation. Implementation Mapping is generally conceptualized as a tool to prospectively guide implementation. However, many implementation efforts build on previous or ongoing implementation efforts, i.e., "existing implementation." Learnings from existing implementation may offer insights critical to the success of further implementation activities. In this article, we present a modified Implementation Mapping methodology to be applied when evaluating existing implementation. We illustrate the methodology using the example of evaluating ongoing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Switzerland. Through this example, we describe how we identify relevant stakeholders, implementation determinants and outcomes as well as currently employed implementation strategies. Moreover, we describe how we compare the types of strategies that are part of existing implementation efforts with those that implementation science would suggest as being suited to address identified implementation determinants. The results can be used for assessing the current state of implementation outcomes, refining ongoing implementation strategies, and informing future implementation efforts.